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

[zhzd97163com]

>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.

The effectiveness of a security process is not measured by how long it takes, but by how accurately and efficiently it identifies genuine risks.


Many individuals stuck in extended security screening are already residing in Canada. If someone truly represents a national security threat, leaving their case unresolved for several years does not meaningfully improve security outcomes. In fact, it suggests a system that struggles to assess risk in a timely manner.


A strong security system should be both rigorous and efficient. Prolonged administrative delays without transparency do not inherently make the country safer. What is needed is a process that is fast, accurate, and accountable, rather than one where cases remain unresolved for years.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

The effectiveness of a security process is not measured by how long it takes, but by how accurately and efficiently it identifies genuine risks.


Many individuals stuck in extended security screening are already residing in Canada. If someone truly represents a national security threat, leaving their case unresolved for several years does not meaningfully improve security outcomes. In fact, it suggests a system that struggles to assess risk in a timely manner.


A strong security system should be both rigorous and efficient. Prolonged administrative delays without transparency do not inherently make the country safer. What is needed is a process that is fast, accurate, and accountable, rather than one where cases remain unresolved for years.

Why are you using ChatGPT to write simpler responses? Internal security isn't something that needs a lot of explanation or transparency when something has already been flagged as "comprehensive security screening".

>What is needed is a process that is fast, accurate, and accountable

That's a very idealistic view of the world and idealism never translates to reality.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

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.

>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.

Again, that "skilled" definition fails to bring skilled people. You aren't skilled if you manage a bunch of people who shovel garbage for a living. But, because of broken definitions, we see everyone claim themselves as "skilled". The number of immigrants who claim to be skilled and then complain about "lack of jobs", "economic hardship", etc empirically supports what I just stated.

75th percentile and above is a benchmark that most compensation management systems used if you have never heard of that. At this point, my observation is immigrants cherry pick what you want e.g. skilled definition from IRCC, but are very selectively against other issues. I get that it is human nature, but, that's the whole point. You think it is "fair", when there's hardly anything fair about this entire topic.

Let's not hijack this thread with this spam and let it exist for the purpose it serves.

 

[vkamath]

Interesting thread. Security is 100% necessary and should never be compromised yet people who are criminals, who brandish weapons and spread hatred get their PR and Citizenship faster than people who are honest. The system absolutely needs an overhaul. If this is outsourced to any 3rd party enforce standards.

1. 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: This should never be done. Its a bad decision. But yes there needs to be transparency as to who is blocking the file or to which agency the request has been sent.

2. Ensure Accountability: Require the Minister to appear quarterly before the Standing Committee to report on backlog reduction progress and mandate independent audits of administrative bottleneck: 100% agree on this.

3. Increase Transparency: Require IRCC, CSIS, and CBSA to provide proactive 90-day status updates specifying the current agency, processing stage, and updated timelines for delayed files. This should be done instead of 1.

Unless we know how the security screening works in details escalation won't help. I want to sign it but I am not in favour of point 1.