February 2025 - Citizenship Applications

[mano99]

I notice a few applicants getting LPP now. That could be exceptions to my guess (of some technical kind or another), or they've opened the process (since no more oaths can be scheduled before monday) - or evidence I was just wrong.

ircc told me that criminality passed and security is in progress ( security is handled by csis ) and those are the ones i expect having delays currently .

 

[armoured]

It seems the Liberal government, particularly the Immigration Minister (Rachel Bendayan), may be strategically prioritizing the processing of PR applications, especially through the Francophone stream. ... In that context, pushing through as many PRs as possible, especially in federally favored categories like Francophone immigration, could be a deliberate move to secure their immigration goals before any major policy changes.

I don't think that makes sense as a theory - timeframes too short to approve that many (to what end? what difference is a few thousand more francophone PRs going to make, in quantities feasible in the 5-6 weeks of an election?), the new cabinet came in only a few weeks before election - i.e. at a time when they knew chances of winning would be decent, and high-risk esp if any chance of a conservative win (civil service could/would push back and possibly leak this kind of unprincipled interference from a minister - and too many staff would know about and notice).

It is possible to attribute malice, if you like. It should make some sense though.

 

[maple_leaf25]

I don't think that makes sense as a theory - timeframes too short to approve that many (to what end? what difference is a few thousand more francophone PRs going to make, in quantities feasible in the 5-6 weeks of an election?), the new cabinet came in only a few weeks before election - i.e. at a time when they knew chances of winning would be decent, and high-risk esp if any chance of a conservative win (civil service could/would push back and possibly leak this kind of unprincipled interference from a minister - and too many staff would know about and notice).

It is possible to attribute malice, if you like. It should make some sense though.

You're right that it's not about malice. It's about how much control the Immigration Minister actually has. Under Canadian law (IRPA), the Minister can shift immigration priorities quickly without needing cabinet approval. That includes instructing IRCC to prioritize certain streams, like Francophone applicants.

Having worked as a diplomat, I’ve seen firsthand how immigration levers are often used not just as policy tools, but as instruments of soft power and political signaling, especially in the lead-up to elections.

There’s precedent for this. In 2021, just months before the federal election, the Liberals launched the TR-to-PR pathway for over 90,000 people. It wasn’t illegal; it was strategic. Similarly, fast-tracking Afghan resettlement in 2021 was partly about optics. Immigration decisions are often timed to support political narratives, especially during elections.

It also doesn’t take huge numbers to matter. Even a few thousand Francophone PRs can signal progress to key voter groups in Quebec and Ontario. That’s valuable in a tight race.

And the idea that civil servants would leak or block this assumes it’s improper. But speeding up an already-approved stream like Francophone immigration can easily be framed as following through on policy, not interference.

The system allows it, it’s been done before, and the political incentives make sense.

 

[mano99]

https://imgur.com/a/R6R79Hb

we used to see bg check sometimes not done before test , but for sure not at this scale almost 99% of march applicants

 

[armoured]

Having worked as a diplomat, I’ve seen firsthand how immigration levers are often used not just as policy tools, but as instruments of soft power and political signaling, especially in the lead-up to elections.

But this is during an election, unannounced - not during the lead-up. And how many would actually get processed in the 4-5 weeks in question? Enough to make what difference?

There’s precedent for this. In 2021, just months before the federal election, the Liberals launched the TR-to-PR pathway for over 90,000 people. It wasn’t illegal; it was strategic. Similarly, fast-tracking Afghan resettlement in 2021 was partly about optics. Immigration decisions are often timed to support political narratives, especially during elections.

These were things announced - again - before the election. That is indeed, and absolutely, a shift the minister can make, to support an obvious political narrative.

But what's the utility of doing something, quietly, during the election? (And not making political hay from it)

It also doesn’t take huge numbers to matter. Even a few thousand Francophone PRs can signal progress to key voter groups in Quebec and Ontario. That’s valuable in a tight race.

Well, ambiguous political benefit in Quebec, unless micro-targetted to some specific riding. Perhaps to some francophone ridings in Ontario, and I'll admit I don't follow riding-by-riding francophone marginal vote shares enough to say.

And the idea that civil servants would leak or block this assumes it’s improper. But speeding up an already-approved stream like Francophone immigration can easily be framed as following through on policy, not interference.

Again - before an election, no issue (although at risk of getting reversed if change of govt).

But during an election, it falls under caretaker convention, in which ministers and govt should only be undertaking routine and/or necessary work (it does allow for emergencies of course). The way I've seen that in action is - decisions get made, wherever possible, at the levels below the minister (and ministers getting advice to not get involved and kick it to the deputies instead - not to mention they're usually too busy campaigning).

Now I admit, the caretaker convention is a fairly toothless one, but charges of impropriety are easy to make (and leak). And with an opposition party hungry to come in and make/land whatever accusations they can make.

For a few hundred PRs getting processed quicker during an election, perhaps a thousand additional? I still say, not worth it.

And remember: the current govt (and any party really) can 'announce' whatever initiatives they like during the election - that's the primary mechanism for getting out the marginal vote. (And as we know well, drop the implementation after if they like). The marginal benefit of doing something basically in secret during the election as you suggest - very minor.

I can think of other ways one might try to get some advantage, and they would be easier to control and less disruptive / noticeable to departmental business. This allegation doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MJSPARV]

I am in the camp of I think ircc is business as usual and it’s just normal delays and fluctuations in work flow. But I was intrigued enough to calculate if the number of people granted citizenship in the approximately one month campaign would be at all significant. Spoiler alert: it’s not.

Based on numbers found online approx 27.642 million Canadians can vote. In 2023 and 2024 approximately 380000 people were granted citizenship each year. That means per month about 31,667 people are given citizenship. Assuming all those people are eligible to vote (and they won’t be - some will be kids) the percentage increase in voters from adding 31667 new citizens will be… 0.1 %. Especially given that all those new voters will not be in a single riding (even if most are in the GTA and other major cities, there are lots of ridings in highly populated areas). So the notion it’s being slowed on purpose seems ludicrous.

Additionally I hope seeing how large the numbers of citizenship grants are puts in perspective what a small sample size is on this forum and what a gargantuan task the citizenship officers have! Frankly 8 months seems pretty good to me seeing those numbers

 

[maple_leaf25]

But this is during an election, unannounced - not during the lead-up. And how many would actually get processed in the 4-5 weeks in question? Enough to make what difference?



These were things announced - again - before the election. That is indeed, and absolutely, a shift the minister can make, to support an obvious political narrative.

But what's the utility of doing something, quietly, during the election? (And not making political hay from it)



Well, ambiguous political benefit in Quebec, unless micro-targetted to some specific riding. Perhaps to some francophone ridings in Ontario, and I'll admit I don't follow riding-by-riding francophone marginal vote shares enough to say.



Again - before an election, no issue (although at risk of getting reversed if change of govt).

But during an election, it falls under caretaker convention, in which ministers and govt should only be undertaking routine and/or necessary work (it does allow for emergencies of course). The way I've seen that in action is - decisions get made, wherever possible, at the levels below the minister (and ministers getting advice to not get involved and kick it to the deputies instead - not to mention they're usually too busy campaigning).

Now I admit, the caretaker convention is a fairly toothless one, but charges of impropriety are easy to make (and leak). And with an opposition party hungry to come in and make/land whatever accusations they can make.

For a few hundred PRs getting processed quicker during an election, perhaps a thousand additional? I still say, not worth it.

And remember: the current govt (and any party really) can 'announce' whatever initiatives they like during the election - that's the primary mechanism for getting out the marginal vote. (And as we know well, drop the implementation after if they like). The marginal benefit of doing something basically in secret during the election as you suggest - very minor.

I can think of other ways one might try to get some advantage, and they would be easier to control and less disruptive / noticeable to departmental business. This allegation doesn't make sense to me.

But this is during an election, unannounced - not during the lead-up. And how many would actually get processed in the 4-5 weeks in question? Enough to make what difference?



These were things announced - again - before the election. That is indeed, and absolutely, a shift the minister can make, to support an obvious political narrative.

But what's the utility of doing something, quietly, during the election? (And not making political hay from it)



Well, ambiguous political benefit in Quebec, unless micro-targetted to some specific riding. Perhaps to some francophone ridings in Ontario, and I'll admit I don't follow riding-by-riding francophone marginal vote shares enough to say.



Again - before an election, no issue (although at risk of getting reversed if change of govt).

But during an election, it falls under caretaker convention, in which ministers and govt should only be undertaking routine and/or necessary work (it does allow for emergencies of course). The way I've seen that in action is - decisions get made, wherever possible, at the levels below the minister (and ministers getting advice to not get involved and kick it to the deputies instead - not to mention they're usually too busy campaigning).

Now I admit, the caretaker convention is a fairly toothless one, but charges of impropriety are easy to make (and leak). And with an opposition party hungry to come in and make/land whatever accusations they can make.

For a few hundred PRs getting processed quicker during an election, perhaps a thousand additional? I still say, not worth it.

And remember: the current govt (and any party really) can 'announce' whatever initiatives they like during the election - that's the primary mechanism for getting out the marginal vote. (And as we know well, drop the implementation after if they like). The marginal benefit of doing something basically in secret during the election as you suggest - very minor.

I can think of other ways one might try to get some advantage, and they would be easier to control and less disruptive / noticeable to departmental business. This allegation doesn't make sense to me.

You make a good point. Your argument rests on the assumption of rational behavior, which—let’s be honest—is something politicians often fall short of. That said, your points are still well-reasoned and compelling.

 

[armoured]

I am in the camp of I think ircc is business as usual and it’s just normal delays and fluctuations in work flow. But I was intrigued enough to calculate if the number of people granted citizenship in the approximately one month campaign would be at all significant. Spoiler alert: it’s not.

I think it is possible it's just business as usual.

One small point for clarity though: my point about them possibly having paused, for only a short while, files that probably would't have made it to oath in time anyway (or only some smaller still number) does not depend on there being a significant number.

In fact more so the contrary: it's unlikely to be a significant number (although sure conceivably longshot in a couple ridings), but it is still important to avoid the appearance of things being rushed to someone's advantage. To avoid the possibility of there being accusations.

And of course 'the public' is bad at numbers generally (and the media doesn't always provide the correct context), etc., etc. So a scandal can be whipped up out of very thin gruel indeed.

If that doesn't convince you: at advance polling on the weekend there were 3-4 days of social media 'concern' that Elections Canada isn't providing pens, but only pencils.

Which is easily confirmed to be intentional: pencils work better and are not easily erased without leaving a trace, they selected specific pencils and paper for the characteristics ballots need, they're superior to pens (don't bleed through paper and aren't ruined by water, lead on pencils can't be swapped out or adultered like ink, etc), and has been standard practice at federal elections for ~60 years. Oh - and sure, you can use a pen if you like - but Elections Canada provides pencils so bring your own pen if you want. (Ah one more thing - this has all been explained on Elections Canada website for ages)

And yet, there are seemingly thousands of people who believe it's a plot and the lizard people are going to change their vote.

So yeah, it's not crazy to do a little pause to avoid some unfounded accusations.

That said: I've always said I'm speculating. It could well be normal delays, as you say.

 

[SathyaPriyatharsini]

Application Submitted: Feb 02nd 2025
Application filed: Feb 18th 2025
Background Verification Completed: Mar 05th 2025
Citizenship Test Updated to Completed: Mar 24th 2025
After that, there is no update.
Is it the same for anyone here?
Appreciate your support.

 

[Mohammed9502]

Type: Online application
Location: Mississauga (looks like office is Sydney, mentioned on AOR)
Physical Presence Days: 1112
Application: Family (1 Adult and 1 child)
Application sent: Feb 20 2025
Delivered: Feb 20 2025
AOR: Mar 6 2025
Background check completed: Mar 20 2025
Citizenship Test: Tracker updated on Mar 22 2025
Citizenship Test Email: Confirmation received on Mar 25 2025
Test Window: Apr 4 2025 to May 3 2025
Test Taken: Apr 4 2025 (passed 18/20)
Test updated as completed on tracker: Apr 22 2025

 

[WATCHTOWA]

Does it take up to a month for FP to get updated? Just curious. Thanks!

 

[Hope5]

After two months I got an update today that my test results is invalidated
Can any one tell me what's the next step and can any share ircc contact number

 

[MJSPARV]

After two months I got an update today that my test results is invalidated
Can any one tell me what's the next step and can any share ircc contact number

People have posted before about having tests invalidated and they got instructions when they were told it was invalid (wait to be contacted for further instructions, I believe).

 

[joecccc]

After two months I got an update today that my test results is invalidated
Can any one tell me what's the next step and can any share ircc contact number

Did something go wrong with your first test? Looking through your post history, it looks like you did the test twice. Once on Mar 22 and April 6th.

 

[Hope5]

Only took one attempt .can you share ircc contact number where I can talk to agent