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.
