exactly... applicants want this issue resolved ASAP no matter how the government decides to tackle the situation.
Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship
- Thread starter piotrqc
- Start date
Right - so don't get involved in the details of government/labour unions/employee disputes. Government should manage that, and if they decide they can best do it by bringing employees from the fisheries dept, that's their business.
There is very little upside for this particular cause to make enemies of unions, government employees, or whomever - whatever small benefit (eg amongst those who hate government and think all govt employees are lazy) will be counterbalanced by people who work for the government, their families, their friends, the union movements, etc, and don't like these attacks.
Focus on the issue.
There's a good one on this saying don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you where to go. Making friends or enemies is so natural in the case of one being exhausted, lost, depressed. It would be fair to say that the government has not done its best in the communication piece even if they totally failed the on-line testing piece it would still be better to acknowledge the fact and/or build a get-well plan. As long as there's a line of communication those waiting, i.e. myself, you and tens of thousands of others wouldn't be so desperate to look for enemies, the guilty ones or international conspiracies. This thread has already seen quite a few battles starting from nothing. I would cautiously suggest we don't go into another one. I do believe that everyone here, and I mean literally everyone, who is either watching or contributing to this thread has one and the same reason for doing that regardless of what they think of the whole situation and the ways out of it. Some prefer to sit and wait and that is their rightful choice, others prefer to point out inefficiencies to the govt in the whole clusterfunk of unknowingness the pandemic has brought and especially in the case of testing while some other immigration and naturalization parts seem to be getting at least some movement. So let's better focus on ourselves and what we do or don't do instead of telling peeps who needs to do what. A free country at the end of the day...
Well, we can probably base ourselves in the last 2 changes to the citizenship act and how much time between the first reading in the House of Commons and the actual coming into force.
1) C-24 under a majority Harper government :
First reading in February 2014. The government went lightning fast with the legislative process, with a royal assent 4 months later.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/bill/C-24/first-reading
The coming into force of the new regulations regarding the physical presence, intent to reside in Canada, age range for language requirements took a full year after royal assent, see this program delivery update from June 2015 :
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/updates/2015-06-11.html
IRCC processed all applications between the royal ascent and the coming into force of the new law the way it was before...
2) C-6 under a majority Trudeau government :
First reading in February 2016 and royal ascent in June 2017.
https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8117654
Then a coming into force in October 17, 2017.
In both cases, it took more than a year, if we start counting from the moment of the first reading. Let alone if we take T=0 at the moment of the new government's appointing.
Si le passé est garant de l'avenir...
You give a microscopic answer and expand too much on a small detail ... To the point of moving away and forgetting the essential. With respect, you have to know how to read between the lines.
Yet I have clearly said that even if this estimate of one year is true, it is very likely that we do not have this timeframe, and that the situation will remain blocked for so long, that this `` safety period '' of a year is not enough and has passed very quickly, and that it will be too late even when this year or a little more will have completely passed.
Let me explain, I will try to simplify things: As I often say: '' Si vis pacem, para bellum '' *
* (Latin adage translated as "If you want peace, prepare for war".)
This precautionary principle leads me to consider all scenarios, even the worst.
According to several health specialists, and according to their best estimates, the global epidemological situation will not be completely resolved ... Only from the year 2023, and that for their most otpimistic projections.
Okay, now back to our case: We are going to assume the worst, that is to say that IRCC continues to maintain the status quo, by making promises to calm people's expectations (As the Honorable Minister did recently) , but without doing anything concrete, and simply maintaining the status quo situation until '' things are better '', to hope to resume tests in person ...
Of course, IRCC and their union will go out of their way to maintain the status quo as well, and will argue that it is unthinkable to consider an in-person recovery until after a worldwide daily infection rate of zero ... and time will pass, will pass ...
When the situation has settled down to such an extent that they will no longer be able to pretend the covid risk (i.e. in 2023 according to the most optimistic forecasts), there will already have been early elections for a while, and it will be very likely that by then that O'toole has been at the head of a conservative majority government for quite a while already ... Even the `` safety period '' of a year or a year and a little more will have already collapsed, and the damage will already be done.
In short, all this to say that waiting passively and gently not only will not get things done, but may lead us towards the disaster scenario more quickly and more brutally.
I wouldn't wait nicely by remaining a spectator. Not me.
, Piotr.
In your opinion, is IRCC the right level of government to focus on? is it the immigration minister (Marco Mendocino) or is it the entire liberal Trudeau government?
It is the minister whom we should be focusing on. In particular, because his position is contingent on the voting preferences of his constituents.
Just tweet him something like the following:
Or something to that effect.
Right, also from a social engineering perspective, putting a face to a cause intensifies the pressure a lot more.
IRCC should continue to be pressured and contacted / pinged of course. Partly to set a track record.
BUT: IRCC itself is not political. Only Minister's office.
And not just Minister and Minister's office - Minister's constitutency office. All MPs. Other ministers particularly those that have any connection whatsoever with foreign, immigration, foreign workers, labour, anything. Prime Minister's office, Prime Minister's constituency office.
MPs of all parties, not just Liberals. Immigration critic of Tories. Of NDP. Partly leaders of all parties in parliament - including greens. Riding associations of other parties. Former MPs, if they have indicated they will run again; opponents of sitting MPs.
Of course, newspapers, any immigrant or other groups that would be interested or affected, professional associations, etc.
Pick any or almost any ethnic association or business group associated with an ethnic group with high levels of immigration - or of which anyone is a member; ask them to write letters to Minister, MPs, etc.
I'm not kidding - say you're a member of the Punjabi IT Entrepreneurs Association (I'm picking that randomly, could be the Austrian Merchant Navy Vets, as long as they have members that write letters and vote) - try to get the head of that to write letters.
Church and religious associations, whatever.
I agree but would not limit to minister - ministers can be shuffled tomorrow, and a new one starts from scratch (which can sometimes be good if new minister wants to make a mark). MPs in same party and opposition - they keep the pressure on within the government and through parliament, if they smell something the government looks bad on.
It is no longer allowed to express oneself and give an analysis?
Yes indeed, I remain convinced at my level, in my opinion, that if the Conservatives were to win by a majority, we will be doomed, yes ...
I remain convinced that they will change the law retroactively.
And if you ask me to be optimistic, and I make an “effort”: I think the “best” they will do will be to maintain the status quo that they will have inherited from their liberal predecessors.
Hence the need to put pressure now to get things done a bit ...
According to my analysis, it would be more difficult for a new majority conservative government to simply cancel any progress that we can gain with our mobilization (A start of something, an online test pilot program for example, etc.), than simply maintaining the status quo that they will inherit if there is no change before they win.
In short, I have the right to be wary of them (especially in view of their positions, their past, etc ...).
And to go back to your posts from before: IRCC employees are not sacred. They are not sacred people We have the right to discuss.
, Piotr.
Last edited:
I still fail to see why your "analysis" about retroactive measures stops at PRs applying for citizenship instead of something like "a conservative majority under O'toole will strip all naturalized Canadians of their citizenship if they hold another citizenship". If we were to be pessimistic, let's go all the way maybe?
Oh definitely! The more faces we can tie to this (as @deadbird correctly pointed out), the better. Especially given an NDP MP spoke out about this issue, it can be used to call out the Liberals. Essentially, the more NDP feel they can call the Liberals out on this, the more publicity this issue will receive. And the more publicity it receives, the greater the likelihood of some action.
The IRCC are definitely in the wrong here - it does not take much effort to provide people with some updates. They put shame to the "Most Transparent Country" tagline Canada has been receiving for the past few years.