You think people whose citizenship applications are delayed for months and probably years are not negatively affected?
Everyone is equally affected by these delays and no one is in a position to decide who is more affected.
"You think people whose citizenship applications are delayed for months and probably years are not negatively affected?"
No. And there is nothing I have ever posted which would come anywhere near suggesting that.
In particular, if you bother to respond to what I post, you should bother to read at least what I have posted in this topic. I am very much on board with RESPONSIBLE and REASONABLE advocacy aimed at encouraging IRCC to increase its efforts to get processing citizenship applications on track.
But there is no simple recipe for influencing the government. And it gets a lot more complicated when trying to influence a bureaucracy.
There is a simple recipe for sabotaging efforts to advance a worthwhile cause. Exaggerated and unfounded allegations. Extreme or otherwise disproportionate activism. Both of these have long been employed as tactics to divert and undermine genuine, well-deserving causes for a very, very long time.
"Everyone is equally affected by these delays . . . "
That is obviously not at all true. The very lives of asylum claimants are on the line. That's a rather easy call. Like the paramedic arriving at the scene of an accident and attending to the individual bleeding badly before treating the dude with a broken arm.
Applying triage criteria or comparable approaches to decision-making are a big part of what the government is currently doing in many, many areas. This was a central, key element in relaxing the lockdown itself, gradually opening up different aspects of the economy and social activity based on assessing the relative impact to different activities and businesses, along with other criteria (such as capacity to implement protective measures . . . which probably is another factor relative to conducting hearings involving a few individuals who can readily maintain appropriate distancing versus the logistics of testing fifty to a hundred and fifty individuals at a time).
". . . no one is in a position to decide who is more affected."
Well, again, that is what the government has been doing in many, many aspects of governing. Part of the job in times like these. They are precisely in that position and doing that, taking the nature and scope of how people are affected into account in determining who and how this or that government function is restored.
Many may disagree with this or that particular decision in terms of the triage-assessment-process, but it is an easy call to recognize that those whose very lives are in imminent danger should be given priority over those for whom the most serious consequence is a delay in obtaining citizenship that precludes them from voting in a fall election, if there is a fall election.
All of which is totally separate and apart from complaints about how slowly the government is either restoring this or that service, or in finding alternative means of providing the same service. Regarding the latter, many times big bureaucracies do indeed need some prompting, some encouragement, to more promptly respond to changing circumstances. Again, I am all in on sending letters to MPs, for example, encouraging them to in turn encourage the government to up-its-game in matters as important as the granting of citizenship.
But I will be frank. I suspect that much of the rabble-rousing side of the discussion here is NOT genuine. Difficult to discern whether it is due to a MAKE-NOISE (see-me) agenda, with rather little regard for what could actually lead IRCC to more diligently and quickly process pending citizenship applications, or an overt effort to muddy the water and undermine sincere efforts to influence the government to quicken their step, so to say.
For example:
All the case law of the federal court that he has cited or that he may cite is not relevant in this case (talking about other situations particular), and above all, the non-retroactivity of the law is not a clear principle in the common law.
A contrary example:
In France, the principle of non-retroactivity . . .
Recognizing how far-fetched the repeated threat that applications currently in process are at risk for being "blocked" or "returned," it is difficult to discern just what the intent here is. In particular, asserting that Canadian law, the decisions made by judges and justices in the Canadian judiciary, is not relevant, but the law of France is . . . that seems so ludicrous on its face it has the appearance of parody or satire, a Jonathan Swift "Modest Proposal" sort of thing.
Likewise the reference to the "common law," which of course in Canadian jurisprudence has long been largely replaced by the Constitution, Charter of Rights, a huge body of statutory law, and a huge body of law as stated in the official rulings by Federal Court judges and justices, interpreting and applying Canadian statutory law within the guidelines and standards provided in the Constitution and Charter. Sure, principles of common law still have some influence, mainly as an aide in construing the written law, but the nature and scope of what Parliament can do is NOT restrained by the common law. Rather, the nature and scope of what Parliament can do, and cannot do, is restrained by the constitution and the Charter of Rights.
As I have previously discussed in this topic, yes indeed, it is *possible* to adopt and implement SOME retroactive laws in Canada. But in what way, under what circumstances, and especially with what effect, is far from wide open.
In terms of my personal recognition of the scope of what Parliament could do, history matters (and contrary to what was asserted, the previous decisions by the Canadian judiciary are not merely relevant but in many respects are binding). And in this regard, for example, I have engaged in lengthy discussions in this forum regarding a rather profound change in the law adopted in 2012 which has been given retroactive effect, subjecting some PRs to the summary termination of their PR status based on actions that were entirely legal and which occurred YEARS before that change in law (applying cessation of refugee status to PRs, even those who qualify for citizenship and have applications pending, no matter how long ago, how long before the change in law, the PR may have obtained a home country passport or engaged in some other activity which could be the basis for a cessation proceeding). In fact I started
that topic here in order to caution those potentially affected, and in particular to warn that it was being applied retroactively. That is one of the issues I still follow closely and have done what I can to help those potentially affected be aware of the risks.
In any event, the repeated effort to elevate a mere, REMOTE possibility, to the level of a prospective threat which should (the fear-mongering goes) motivate current applicants to take extreme actions (including things like daily emails, which are almost certain to alienate many and otherwise have far more negative impact than positive), seems so obviously counterproductive, again I suspect that disruption or divisiveness is the intent. Unfortunately there is far too much of that polluting efforts to engage in rational and hopefully productive discourse about real issues . . . and again, the REAL issue here is indeed the need to encourage IRCC to be as prompt and efficient as it can manage in getting these procedures back on track.
As those of us who were around here a decade ago are well aware, events leading to six to twelve month delays tend to have a downstream impact which can in turn lead to delays adding up to multiple years. And yeah, the government oft times needs some prompting to get focused and take action.
By the way, in this regard it is worth remembering that the HOW question (like how should IRCC conduct the verification of knowledge of Canada, which is must do as mandated by law . . . albeit it is possible that a Conservative government could change the law and eliminate the knowledge of Canada requirement . . . for those who want to hang their hat on what is merely possible) is logistical, a technical and mechanical matter. That is NOT ordinarily a subject addressed or resolved in the public sphere, or for that matter by anyone in the respective bureaucracy who is involved in policy decision-making. Efforts to encourage IRCC to get going on this problem have a far better chance of influencing things. At least to the extent that external, public pressure can.
