Immigration security screening delays

AI summary

The petitioners say prolonged security screening for applicants residing in Canada creates avoidable public‑safety risks, lacks a single accountable authority, produces persistent backlogs and may misallocate limited resources, increasing burdens on courts, Members of Parliament and oversight bodies. They ask the House of Commons to request that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security study these delays to assess resource levels, examine accountability and transparency, evaluate a risk‑based triage (including reassessing backlog cases), and consider independent audits or reviews (for example by the Auditor General or NSIRA).

AI summaries describe petitioners’ requests and claims. Consult the official record for the full text.

Official petition

Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled Prolonged security screening for applicants residing in Canada may create avoidable risks to public safety by delaying the identification and resolution of cases, including high-risk cases; No single authority is held accountable for the timeliness, service standards of the multi-agency screening process; Significant and persistent backlogs suggest a structural mismatch between referral volumes and screening capacity; High favourable outcomes suggest an inefficient use of the limited resources, with lower-risk cases receiving extensive review while higher-risk cases may not receive timely attention; and Ongoing delays impose substantial burdens on the Federal Court, Members of Parliament, and oversight bodies through increased litigation, casework and complaints. We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to request that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security undertake a study of immigration security screening delays, specifically to: 1. Assessing whether current resource levels match the volume and complexity of security screening cases; 2. Examining the need for a clear accountability framework to ensure timeliness and transparency across all responsible agencies; 3. Evaluating a risk-based triage approach for all cases—including reassessing those in the backlog—to better align resource allocation with risk while maintaining rigorous security standards; and 4. Assessing whether independent review or audit mechanisms, including by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada or the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, are warranted to ensure accountability and system integrity.

Government response

No government response is available yet.