Stuck in Security Screening for months/years? Let's take action! (Official Petition e-7259)

[AlexZhang]

Hi everyone,

I know so many of us here are exhausted and frustrated. We’ve been waiting for months, or even years, with our PR applications completely stuck in "Security Screening - In Progress" , comprehensive security screening with no end in sight.

Instead of just waiting silently, a group of us decided to take action. With the support of MP Jenny Kwan, we have officially launched a parliamentary e-petition (e-7259) to demand IRCC, CSIS, and CBSA fix this broken system, provide transparent 90-day updates, and clear the massive backlog.

We already have over 4,339 signatures in just a day, but we need as many as possible to force the government to respond!

Here is the link to sign: https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7259

Who can sign? Anyone currently residing in Canada (Work Permit, Study Permit, PR, etc.) or Canadian citizens worldwide.

VERY IMPORTANT STEP: After you submit your info on the website, you MUST check your email (including the spam/junk folder) and click the confirmation link!
If you don't click that link, your signature will NOT be counted.

Let’s stand together, raise our voices, and get the transparency and fairness we all deserve. Please sign and share it with anyone you know who is also affected by this!

Thank you so much for your support!

 

[Naturgrl]

How is it the fault of IRCC, CBSA and CSIS if those groups are waiting for immigration, security and background information from countries where one has resided or a citizen of. How is it broken then? So clearing a backlog is just allowing passing of security checks without any information from foreign countries. Isn't that a security risk?

 

[zhzd97163com]

done

 

[zhzd97163com]

How is it the fault of IRCC, CBSA and CSIS if those groups are waiting for immigration, security and background information from countries where one has resided or a citizen of. How is it broken then? So clearing a backlog is just allowing passing of security checks without any information from foreign countries. Isn't that a security risk?

Security screening is necessary and we fully support it.

However, many applicants have been stuck in screening for many years without any updates or explanation.
Other immigration systems such as the U.S. and Australia also conduct security checks, yet applicants generally receive clearer timelines and case updates.
The concern raised in the petition is not about removing security screening, but about improving transparency and ensuring that cases are processed within reasonable timeframes.

 

[Naturgrl]

Security screening is necessary and we fully support it.

However, many applicants have been stuck in screening for many years without any updates or explanation.
Other immigration systems such as the U.S. and Australia also conduct security checks, yet applicants generally receive clearer timelines and case updates.
The concern raised in the petition is not about removing security screening, but about improving transparency and ensuring that cases are processed within reasonable timeframes.

First bullet states...
Enforce Strict Standards: Mandate that applications exceeding 100% of standard processing times be finalized immediately unless a written justification and firm completion date are provided.

So if applications exceed processing times they should be finalized immediately. That doesn't sound like security screening would be completed. If countries don't give the security information then what is a reasonable time frame. It says strict standards but then approve if exceed standards.

 

[zhzd97163com]

First bullet states...
Enforce Strict Standards: Mandate that applications exceeding 100% of standard processing times be finalized immediately unless a written justification and firm completion date are provided.

So if applications exceed processing times they should be finalized immediately. That doesn't sound like security screening would be completed. If countries don't give the security information then what is a reasonable time frame. It says strict standards but then approve if exceed standards.

First bullet states: Mandate that applications exceeding 100% of standard processing times be finalized immediately unless a written justification and firm completion date are provided.

The point is not that applications should be approved without completing security screening. Security screening should absolutely be completed.

What the proposal suggests is that when a case exceeds the standard processing time, the responsible agency should provide a written justification and a clear estimated completion timeline.

At the moment, many applicants remain in security screening for several years with no explanation or timeline. The concern is about transparency and accountability in the process, not bypassing security checks.

In any administrative system, delays can occur. But indefinite delays without explanation or estimated completion timelines indicate a process management issue rather than a security requirement.

 

[xy65893]

Passed 7K milestone! https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7259

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

First bullet states: Mandate that applications exceeding 100% of standard processing times be finalized immediately unless a written justification and firm completion date are provided.

The point is not that applications should be approved without completing security screening. Security screening should absolutely be completed.

What the proposal suggests is that when a case exceeds the standard processing time, the responsible agency should provide a written justification and a clear estimated completion timeline.

At the moment, many applicants remain in security screening for several years with no explanation or timeline. The concern is about transparency and accountability in the process, not bypassing security checks.

In any administrative system, delays can occur. But indefinite delays without explanation or estimated completion timelines indicate a process management issue rather than a security requirement.

You want what as an explanation? You'll only receive responses like "waiting for partner agency to respond" -> how will that solve anything? You'll still be waiting with uncertainity as that "govt body in Iraq" isn't going to be bound to CBSA/CSIS's mandate to respond. Tell me, will some random agency in Iraq give CSIS a timeline to respond within X days? Not sure about you, but I doubt it.

Also, you are implying that we burden our resources with more paperwork because someone from a high-risk area/profile wants it to be sped for them - that's not a good look for 2026 where security is being seriously questioned. This will be a political suicide for anyone who supports it. Also, if a petition is only supported by non-citizens, does it even hold a merit?

 

[iVictor]

You want what as an explanation? You'll only receive responses like "waiting for partner agency to respond" -> how will that solve anything? You'll still be waiting with uncertainity as that "govt body in Iraq" isn't going to be bound to CBSA/CSIS's mandate to respond. Tell me, will some random agency in Iraq give CSIS a timeline to respond within X days? Not sure about you, but I doubt it.

Also, you are implying that we burden our resources with more paperwork because someone from a high-risk area/profile wants it to be sped for them - that's not a good look for 2026 where security is being seriously questioned. This will be a political suicide for anyone who supports it. Also, if a petition is only supported by non-citizens, does it even hold a merit?

They do not send requests to Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc. Info sharing only involves sending requests to the Five Eyes countries (the U.S., Australia, the UK, and New Zealand). In my notes, I can see that the responses came back within two weeks.
The whole issue is specifically with security - checking information against their own databases, which is done very quickly. Why do they keep cases for years? Because no one pushes them. That’s exactly what the petition is about - let’s finally fix the process.

 

[zhzd97163com]

Passed 7K milestone! https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7259

almost 9k now!

 

[zhzd97163com]

They do not send requests to Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc. Info sharing only involves sending requests to the Five Eyes countries (the U.S., Australia, the UK, and New Zealand). In my notes, I can see that the responses came back within two weeks.
The whole issue is specifically with security - checking information against their own databases, which is done very quickly. Why do they keep cases for years? Because no one pushes them. That’s exactly what the petition is about - let’s finally fix the process.

Requesting written justification and an estimated timeline is standard administrative practice in any system that values accountability.

Also, portraying all applicants in screening as “high-risk profiles” is simply inaccurate. Many affected applicants are students, engineers, and skilled workers with no security concerns.

Canada’s parliamentary petition system does not restrict support to citizens only. If the system itself allows residents and applicants to participate, dismissing their voices simply because they are not citizens misses the point of public consultation entirely.

Transparency and reasonable processing expectations are not a threat to security. Lack of transparency is a threat to public trust. Supporting security screening and asking for reasonable timelines and transparency are not contradictory. The real question is whether a multi-year opaque process with no explanations represents effective security policy or simply poor administrative management.

 

[Shmiler]

If you don't like it......

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

They do not send requests to Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc. Info sharing only involves sending requests to the Five Eyes countries (the U.S., Australia, the UK, and New Zealand). In my notes, I can see that the responses came back within two weeks.
The whole issue is specifically with security - checking information against their own databases, which is done very quickly. Why do they keep cases for years? Because no one pushes them. That’s exactly what the petition is about - let’s finally fix the process.

>checking information against their own databases, which is done very quickly.

Fetching data vs inferring data are two different things. Later takes more time. Again, as I said before, a petition by non-citizens that demands expedition when the general sentiment of citizens is completely opposite won't fly.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

Requesting written justification and an estimated timeline is standard administrative practice in any system that values accountability.

Also, portraying all applicants in screening as “high-risk profiles” is simply inaccurate. Many affected applicants are students, engineers, and skilled workers with no security concerns.

Canada’s parliamentary petition system does not restrict support to citizens only. If the system itself allows residents and applicants to participate, dismissing their voices simply because they are not citizens misses the point of public consultation entirely.

Transparency and reasonable processing expectations are not a threat to security. Lack of transparency is a threat to public trust. Supporting security screening and asking for reasonable timelines and transparency are not contradictory. The real question is whether a multi-year opaque process with no explanations represents effective security policy or simply poor administrative management.

>Also, portraying all applicants in screening as “high-risk profiles” is simply inaccurate.

I think you are underestimating just how many criminals are entering Canada through these channels and just HOW MUCH SUPPORT exists for even more stricter assessments.

Very few ACTUAL "skilled workers" come to Canada. I'd argue it is 5% of less of the total immigration. What you are rather talking about the losely defined "skilled" definition that goes around. Skilled by definition is 75th percentile and above in a field that can even be considered a skilled field.

>If the system itself allows residents and applicants to participate, dismissing their voices simply because they are not citizens misses the point of public consultation entirely.

This at the same time crosses the definition of interference in internal matters of Canada. If you take the petitions of non-citizens at face value, then the integrity of parliamentary processes becomes questionable. This at a time, when citizens need far more support/resources to go about their day-to-day lives makes it a much lower priority item to even be considered.

You need to look beyond this limited view of "we need faster processing" when citizens feel uncomfortable about the state of immigration security checks. I still don't see how/why it would fly.

 

[zhzd97163com]

>Also, portraying all applicants in screening as “high-risk profiles” is simply inaccurate.

I think you are underestimating just how many criminals are entering Canada through these channels and just HOW MUCH SUPPORT exists for even more stricter assessments.

Very few ACTUAL "skilled workers" come to Canada. I'd argue it is 5% of less of the total immigration. What you are rather talking about the losely defined "skilled" definition that goes around. Skilled by definition is 75th percentile and above in a field that can even be considered a skilled field.

>If the system itself allows residents and applicants to participate, dismissing their voices simply because they are not citizens misses the point of public consultation entirely.

This at the same time crosses the definition of interference in internal matters of Canada. If you take the petitions of non-citizens at face value, then the integrity of parliamentary processes becomes questionable. This at a time, when citizens need far more support/resources to go about their day-to-day lives makes it a much lower priority item to even be considered.

You need to look beyond this limited view of "we need faster processing" when citizens feel uncomfortable about the state of immigration security checks. I still don't see how/why it would fly.

The argument seems to conflate different issues.

No one is requesting to remove security screening. The concern raised is about multi-year delays without transparency or timelines. Requesting accountability in administrative processes does not weaken security screening.

Second, the claim that large numbers of criminals are entering Canada through skilled immigration channels is a serious allegation, but it would require evidence. All pr applicants already undergo security and admissibility checks involving IRCC, CBSA and CSIS.

Third, the definition of “skilled workers” is not subjective. Canada’s immigration system uses the noc framework, which clearly defines TEER 0–3 occupations as skilled. Redefining “skilled” as the 75th percentile of a field is simply not how the system operates.

Finally, Canada’s parliamentary petition system explicitly allows residents and applicants, not only citizens, to participate. If Parliament designed the system this way, participation by non-citizens cannot reasonably be described as interference in Canada’s internal affairs. In addition, transparency and efficiency in security screening benefit everyone, including citizens. An inefficient and prolonged process does not necessarily strengthen security; it often creates uncertainty and administrative backlog. No one should assume that an opaque, ineffective and prolonged process automatically results in better security outcomes.

The petition is simply asking for transparency and reasonable timelines in a process that currently leaves many applicants waiting for years without explanation. That is an administrative issue, not a security threat.