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

[piotrqc]

https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/covid-19/employee-illness-leave.html

Effective: November 9, 2020

All employees who are in good health and able to work, including those required by a public health official or medical practitioner to quarantine (self-isolate) or isolate, should continue to work remotely, wherever and whenever possible.

Here is, in my opinion, the irrefutable proof that the pressures are really effective and relevant.

This call to order from the Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada to federal officials is proof that the consolidation of forces with pressure and lobbying really works ... The last intervention of the Liberal deputy in parliament must accentuate this conviction for us.

We must continue to make noise. And ignore the discordant voices that try to discourage us.

 

[vegasIndian]

https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/covid-19/employee-illness-leave.html



Here is, in my opinion, the irrefutable proof that the pressures are really effective and relevant.

This call to order from the Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada to federal officials is proof that the consolidation of forces with pressure and lobbying really works ... The last intervention of the Liberal deputy in parliament must accentuate this conviction for us.

We must continue to make noise. And ignore the discordant voices that try to discourage us.

Looking at your posts, I sometimes feel you are someone who is going to join politics soon or someone related from that field.

 

[prash42]

I hope he/she does. Better to have people who care to make a difference, in positions of power, than those that find legal and procedural justifications for the status quo. We can find plenty of the latter variety just on this thread.

@piotrqc, thank you for taking the lead.

Looking at your posts, I sometimes feel you are someone who is going to join politics soon or someone related from that field.

 

[armoured]

And Canadians (which includes Canadian PRs), as well as others actually, have a Charter protected fundamental right to fair process.
...
Access to the courts and potentially obtaining a Writ of Mandamus ordering IRCC to proceed with processing an application is a REAL REMEDY. Yes, one can sue IRCC. One can even win a lawsuit against IRCC. BUT this claim is NOT yet ripe. This is in the range of later if not last resorts.

I agree with many of your points. And have insufficient knowledge to comment on the specifics of Writ of Mandamus.

For those who wish to consider or pursue legal remedies, it needs discussion with a real lawyer. As dpenabill has outlined pretty well, contract law or consumer protection statutes are NOT going to cut it.

But I would note one point distinct from @dpenabill - a court case that is well-crafted and solidly founded can itself contribute to political pressure or other positive outcomes, such as government deciding to devote resources to hasten resolution and remove the issue from the political arena.

Some short additional points:
1) Charter or fundamental rights and freedoms are the only likely basis (or at least strong basis) to get traction. (These are not easy cases to make in court - see need for good lawyers).
2) The problem in making such a case is that PRs resident in Canada have almost all of the same rights as citizens - freedom of movement, etc. (I believe most exceptions to this are relatively well-grounded in law or not easily challenged if the differences amount to inconveniences).
3) The primary fundamental right that PRs do not have while a citizenhip application is pending until citizenship is finalized is the right to vote.

That is not a blanket argument to complain that one is being deprived of the right to vote as the application, test, and oath procedures are foreseen in law (it was clearly the intent of parliament that citizenship and the right to vote would be subject to these tests and not be automatic, and no timeframe was prescribed).

I submit it is potentially possible for a very talented and experienced lawyer to craft and construct a plausible case that these long, systemic, and excessive delays amount to a serious issue worthy of court review. Importantly, this could be distinct from the particular requirements of a mandamus procedure (which importantly I don't believe can be pursued on a group or class basis).

"Potentially" above here is important - a proper lawyer might well say nope, that's never going to work. A proper practicing lawyer will at minimum note this is actually an enormous undertaking that would cost a lot of money and time and not guarantee success.

The other prong of this that requires some work is remedy - what remedy specifically is going to be pursued? The courts will NOT order the government to just issue citizenship en masse - and are very unlikely to order specific timelines, either. Monetary demands are mostly irrelevant and unlikely, except perhaps for some nominal 'go away' refund of tiny amounts and would not satisfy applicants. This requires some important thought - again, lawyers - on what potential remedy can be sought and won't be tossed out. (This does not mean government couldn't offer to settle with some political commitment to speed things up, it's hard or impossible to sue when you do not have a feasible remedy you want the courts to impose()

This does not mean either that such a hypothetical case would necessarily win but such a case may provide some room to get discovery from the government of actual figures, political profile and pressure that may not be otherwise achievable, etc.

I think most of the other potential legal remedies being discussed in this thread are non-starters.

In the meantime, as already suggested, an OCCASIONAL, polite communication (even via webform) to IRCC which ASKS IRCC to proceed with the application can (1) help keep the pressure on, and thus (2) encourage IRCC to generally address this, and (3) perhaps increase the applicant's chances that he or she will be among those whose application is advanced sooner

I'd simply add that political pressure through MPs and parties is important. Strongly agree however that the political approach is contingent upon the messages and arguments being simple, non-offensive, and measured and moderate - primarily that citizenship is important and grant of citizenship should not be sujbect to excessive delays.

 

[armoured]

It's really sad to see these methods ... It has already been demonstrated several times in this thread that there has really been an abuse of vacancy code 699 (And by extension, an abuse of the public funds of the payers of taxes).

@piotrqc - I am not an expert on this vacancy code 699 issue or the nature of the dispute between treasury board and the various other parties.

BUT: purely from the consideration of how to effect change in the specific area that you seem to want (faster processing of citizenship apps), I invite you to consider whether focussing on this particular and specific issue is actually going to help.

This is not to say the 699 issue is not important, etc (again, not an expert).

I believe focussing on - especially to the extent that you have in this and other trheads - this issue risks muddying the waters, politically and from a public relations/media perspective. To me, it seems to attempt to put the blame upon public employees, where it should remain focussed on the elected government.

It is the elected government's responsibility to 'figure it out' - including managing public employees, resources, budgets, etc.

I do not see any benefit in muddying the story by taking the line that 'see, treasury board is making those employees get back to work, that's the problem.' In part, it's not shown here that treasury board has acted constructively or supportively in getting resources to departments to do what is needed at reasonable budgetary levels - we don't know.

Also, I submit it is NEVER a winning political stance vis a vis the general public to refer to treasury board, good or bad; the general public nods off almost immediately.

You frequently seem in these posts on the 699 issue upset that others don't see it as clearly as you - which is possible.

But it's also possible that they have decided it's a poor approach to take with little expected benefit.

 

[arsal385]

UK has the online citizenship testing system called "Life in the UK" since its inception in 2006/07.
This is bizarre that Canada is still following extremely old paper pencil style test in this technologically advance era and unable to convert into online system despite of this global pendamic period for almost a year.

 

[deadbird]

@armoured Really good points. Respect.

Wdyt about the following in terms of swaying the political direction:

While some may disagree. To me its clear that focused campaigns highlighting the following will certainly deliver results :
(1) Grave Injustice - Disenfranchisement of 100,000+ eligible voters.
(2) Small Ask- Implementation of an online test with 20 questions given 8 months have passed.

 

[armoured]

@armoured Really good points. Respect.

Wdyt about the following in terms of swaying the political direction:

Thank you.

Just my opinion on your two points:
-Disenfranchisement: the problem is it's not technically disenfranchisement because non-citizens do not have the right to vote to begin with. A lawyer would be needed to craft the precise legal language to make the point that the intent of the law is to allow PRs who fulfill the conditions to get the right to vote, and the delays are excessive and unreasonable (and hence not respecting the intent of the law).

In political terms - distinct from the legal question - I personally would avoid the term disenfranchisement for similar reasons. This can be approached in different ways and doesn't need to be limited to one single approach - "we contribute and want to vote" is fine and to my mind most effective, to outline contributions and compliance with law first and foremost. (Taxation without representation is a good slogan but wouldn't use it in Canada.)

[adding a point] I'd also reiterate a point above - it is my experience that MPs are highly sensitive and aware that PRs and their families and friends and employers and neighbours are current and future voters. That's why I emphasize contacting them (and their parties, and their opponents, and their organisers) by letter, by phone, or whatever means possible. Reasonable, simple, straightforward letters, calls, social media posts, whatever. They have very little power to directly resolve systemic problems (i.e. rare they can get your file moved up) - but they do pay attention and communicate to their parties that 'this is an issue.' Not to the exclusion of other political efforts but this is the most simple and direct political step that can be taken.

-Online test: I tend to the approach of @dpenabill that attempting to prescribe specific solutions is not very effective - and in a related concern, I suspect (but have no evidence for) the government being concerned that there may be legal or security barriers to implementing this specific solution. But: nothing wrong with presenting this as an option (preferably one of several) - that the government of Canada has a responsibility to finding an appropriate solution. Universities, courts, municipalities, companies and parliament itself are all innovating to find solutions that work and meet basic needs during the pandemic. It cannot be possible and should not be acceptable that the federal government cannot find an appropriate solution that meets the needs of the law and the lawful residents and citizens of Canada.

Note, though, I'm not a marketing person, and my answers are surely too wordy to be effective. I leave the exercise of getting a short, powerful mesage to those with the necessary skills.

 

[deadbird]

Thank you.

Just my opinion on your two points:
-Disenfranchisement: the problem is it's not technically disenfranchisement because non-citizens do not have the right to vote to begin with. A lawyer would be needed to craft the precise legal language to make the point that the intent of the law is to allow PRs who fulfill the conditions to get the right to vote, and the delays are excessive and unreasonable (and hence not respecting the intent of the law).

In political terms - distinct from the legal question - I personally would avoid the term disenfranchisement for similar reasons. This can be approached in different ways and doesn't need to be limited to one single approach - "we contribute and want to vote" is fine and to my mind most effective, to outline contributions and compliance with law first and foremost. (Taxation without representation is a good slogan but wouldn't use it in Canada.)

-Online test: I tend to the approach of @dpenabill that attempting to prescribe specific solutions is not very effective - and in a related concern, I suspect (but have no evidence for) the government being concerned that there may be legal or security barriers to implementing this specific solution. But: nothing wrong with presenting this as an option (preferably one of several) - that the government of Canada has a responsibility to finding an appropriate solution. Universities, courts, municipalities, companies and parliament itself are all innovating to find solutions that work and meet basic needs during the pandemic. It cannot be possible and should not be acceptable that the federal government cannot find an appropriate solution that meets the needs of the law and the lawful residents and citizens of Canada.

Note, though, I'm not a marketing person, and my answers are surely too wordy to be effective. I leave the exercise of getting a short, powerful mesage to those with the necessary skills.

Thanks! This is very helpful.

 

[armoured]

Thanks! This is very helpful.

I did a bad forum thing and edited adding a point: write to/contact your MPs office. MPs are very sensitive to immigration and citizenship issues. It doesn't mean they can fix everything but they pay attention to 'the mood.'

 

[dpenabill]

I would note one point distinct from @dpenabill - a court case that is well-crafted and solidly founded can itself contribute to political pressure or other positive outcomes, such as government deciding to devote resources to hasten resolution and remove the issue from the political arena.

In addition to agreeing with much of the rest of that post and your posts above, this comment is a good and important point. And at some juncture, SOME citizenship applicants may very well want to press their case.

And yes, this is something to be done with a lawyer's advice and by a lawyer . . . applications for Mandamus are tricky and I have heard Canadian lawyers say that most applications (generally, not just immigration or citizenship cases) are rejected due to a lawyer's failure to properly follow the procedures. That is, not on the merits. And properly pleading the merits is itself complicated and tricky.

But yes, if and when some applicants are in a position to make appropriate applications for a Writ of Mandamus, just doing this can significantly elevate the pressure on IRCC to address the underlying problem.

More than that, trying to not wander too far into the weeds about Mandamus, remember that an absolute prerequisite for making a proper Mandamus application is a FORMAL demand that the Minister do what the Minister has a clear duty to do. I alluded to this before. It is OK and when done with due discretion, and politely, it is a good idea, for applicants to OCCASIONALLY send IRCC a communication asking that IRCC take action to process the application.

And this could be followed up with a more formally structured request, "demand," by a lawyer.

This is one of the ways in which individual applicants can help to keep the pressure on.

When to go the next step, when to make an actual application for a Writ of Mandamus, is a more difficult decision. Again, this is very much lawyer-necessary territory. In addition to tricky procedural hurdles, the burden of proof and the legal standard are high. As noted, for there to be grounds to issue a Writ of Mandamus it must be well-established that the Minister has failed to do a duty that it is clear the Minister must do under the law. And since there is no time period prescribed for processing citizenship applications, the passage of time itself will NOT suffice.


For Clarification:

. . . PRs resident in Canada have almost all of the same rights as citizens - freedom of movement, etc. (I believe most exceptions to this are relatively well-grounded in law or not easily challenged if the differences amount to inconveniences).

Not sure what you mean in regards to "freedom of movement" rights. But, to be clear, the one big exception where PRs do not have the same Charter rights as citizens, is in regards to "mobility rights." In particular, Charter Section 6.(1) specifically prescribes the "mobility" rights protected by the Charter for "every citizen of Canada." In contrast, Charter Section 6.(2) prescribes "mobility" rights protected by the Charter for "every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada . . . "
see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

In common language terms, the gist of the difference is that the Charter protects the right of CITIZENS to travel internationally, but does NOT protect the right of a PR to travel internationally. I discussed this previously in this topic because it has an impact on the viability, the persuasiveness, of some of the positions argued in this topic. In particular, to the extent a few have argued that grant citizenship application processing should be given some priority BECAUSE they need citizenship in order to carry on business requiring international travel, or for other international travel needs, this is NOT something likely to carry much weight. It is fairly clear that the capacity for PRs to travel internationally is not generally restrained by Canadian law (albeit subject to residency requirements, which is true for citizens as well, in addition to the PR Residency Obligation imposed on PRs), but it is also NOT supported or protected. The legal capacity of a PR to travel internationally, and the protections afforded a PR's right to travel internationally, are almost entirely dependent on what passport the PR carries.

BUT the real problem, for purposes of advancing the effort to get the government moving on citizenship application processing, is not so much that the need-citizenship-to-travel-internationally argument likely carries fairly little weight (with the Canadian government and considering priorities), but the connotative implications which typically accompany or are triggered by this argument. And this too has popped up in this topic. This argument tends to trigger concerns about "passport-shopping," people seeking a "passport-of-convenience," or those who are "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport." This is NOT intended to comment on HOW others should see or respond to this issue. Rather, it is to recognize that many, and perhaps a large majority of Canadians, apprehend there is still a serious problem allowing too many to abuse the Canadian immigration system in this way, that is, to obtain a "passport-of-convenience" or otherwise engage in "passport-shopping." And as happened here, when this "need" is argued to support the cause here, it tends to draw fire and become a distraction.

To be clear, these observations are not polemic or about how-it-should-be. In contrast, how-it-really-is necessarily shapes the serious activist's positions and arguments. Effective activism not only focuses on picking battles, it focuses on avoiding distractions or disruptions.

 

[piotrqc]

The Mandamus is a good thing on an individual level, but I'm surprised no one talks about the possibility of a class action suit? ('' Recours collectif '' en français) ...

Especially since it will have more impact in my opinion at the media level and in terms of the pressure exerted. No ?

There have severals precedents in the past, cases against IRCC or there have been class actions, notably in a few cases related to refugees (Interim health insurance if I remember correctly, when the Harper government had attempted to remove or restrict it), there was a recent class action lawsuit against the safe third country agreement with the USA, but also several other cases related to fees, for multiple entry visas for example, voila an article on this last example:

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1135113/visa-touriste-remboursement-entrees-multiples-couts-administratifs-chine-inde

 

[armoured]

In addition to agreeing with much of the rest of that post and your posts above, this comment is a good and important point. And at some juncture, SOME citizenship applicants may very well want to press their case.

And yes, this is something to be done with a lawyer's advice and by a lawyer . . . applications for Mandamus are tricky and I have heard Canadian lawyers say that most applications (generally, not just immigration or citizenship cases) are rejected due to a lawyer's failure to properly follow the procedures. That is, not on the merits. And properly pleading the merits is itself complicated and tricky.

But yes, if and when some applicants are in a position to make appropriate applications for a Writ of Mandamus, just doing this can significantly elevate the pressure on IRCC to address the underlying problem.

No disagreements here. I was also suggesting - since I believe mandamus can only be individual actions - that those who are particularly interested consider some form of collective action/charter based suit; that will be EXTREMELY difficult and require very carefully crafted legal argument. (And may not be successful in a legal sense, or only/partially in a political one). It's also entirely possible a lawyer will say this is hopeless.

At any rate, someone or some group that are directly affected by this problem could discuss and approach with a lawyer - I'm not.

(Of course this would not exclude anyone pursuing mandamus but that's not an easy or immediate process either)

Not sure what you mean in regards to "freedom of movement" rights. But, to be clear, the one big exception where PRs do not have the same Charter rights as citizens, is in regards to "mobility rights." In particular, Charter Section 6.(1) specifically prescribes the "mobility" rights protected by the Charter for "every citizen of Canada." In contrast, Charter Section 6.(2) prescribes "mobility" rights protected by the Charter for "every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada . . . "
see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

You are correct, I should have specified that I was referring to the domestic mobility rights in 6.(2). I agree on your points on international travel rights and indeed I could make more - but will refrain from them because I agree, it's a distraction in this context (even if one of great importance to many applicants, it's not a strong political point).

I underlined the right to vote as the primary, evident difference in charter rights that all can or should agree are important between PR status and citizens. And that I would think both courts (generally speaking) and politicians would be sensitive to.

That said, it has the basic weakness as a legal case that PRs do not have the right to vote (it's not disenfranchisement), the grant of citizenship is explicitly not automatic or a right in law, there is no timeframe prescribed in law, and there will be some considerable deference to govt arguments that the pandemic is a (partial) cause.

 

[piotrqc]

Some general documentation regarding class actions:

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/about-the-court/jurisdiction/class-proceedings

I remain convinced that collective action will be more spectacular, will have more impact and will constitute greater pressure than a simple individual Mandamus.

I also remain convinced that the outcome of the proceedings (Favorable or not), is in this case “ Caduc ” (Unimportant).

Most important will be the media noise, and the direct pressure on the government.

 

[amrelroby]

With all respect to all the lengthy legal arguments flying around in this thread.
This issue is more political than legal. Immigration is more of a political issue than a legal issue.
Immigration laws passed by elected officials, not by judges whose job is just to interpret the laws.
So pressure on elected officials to find solutions to the citizenship backlog is the solution.
It is not an impossible task, tests can be online, IRCC agents can work remotely, etc.

Some of these solutions are already implemented by IRCC for PR card renewals and Family sponsorships and it reduced the backlog.
The government did these changes after pressure from applicants, complaints in the media, applicants sending letters to MPs, etc.
I will not enter into the argument that IRCC was going to implement changes anyway without pressure and applicants' protests are useless.
There is more than enough evidence to support that advocacy works and influence changes.
I am a believer that most desirable reforms do not usually happen spontaneously.

Another issue people are raising is why many applicants are anxious and impatient for citizenship.
There many reasons, not legal reasons, more psychological and practical reasons.
Many are worried that the government could change and make citizenship requirements more strict.
That is not an unreasonable worry, considering that this already happened in 2014 by the conservatives.
Others worry that they will need to leave Canada for personnel or work reasons and prefer to secure their citizenship.
Some people would like to feel secure with citizenship and enjoy the right to vote and have a say in this country.

Whatever the reasons, it is legitimate to ask the government to implement changes to streamline citizenship application.
Yes, it is not as a priority as eradicating COVID or supporting failing businesses or any of the other hundred things needed.
However, the immigration minister and IRCC are not manning hospitals or manufacturing vaccines and
after almost 9 months of the crisis, it should be time to handle this issue.

At last, I appreciate IRCC's work, but like any organization, they are not infallible.
I am surprised that after being away for months from this forum that there are still people here
defending the IRCC performance zealously and arguing against any organized action to pressure for reform.
The PR department in IRCC should come here for recruiting