Immigration Year in Review
Well, it has been a whole year since I started writing this column and just under a year since the Conservatives came to power in Ottawa. So I thought I would use my first column of the New Year to take a look back at the previous 12 months and some of the issues, reforms and changes that emerged in the field of immigration. First the good news:
- International Students in Canada can work off-campus and have more opportunities to become permanent residents after they finish their studies. The federal government and many of the provinces are finally beginning to understand the value that international students who come from all over the world to study here offer to Canada as long-term workers and residents. Earlier this year the feds finally gave many international students the opportunity to obtain work permits so that they can work part-time while they study at the university and college level in Canada. Even better, the advent of Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) across the country have given many of these same students the ability to qualify for permanent residence if they have an employer who is seeking to keep them permanently in the province in which they studied. Rather than mindlessly sending these educated and motivated individuals back to their home countries as soon as they have completed their studies, as we once did, Canada is finally grasping the incredible potential that exists within our foreign student population and is introducing easier routes to work and permanent status for them.
- The Foreign Worker Program has been streamlined for companies seeking to bring in high-demand skilled workers. The feds have also recognized the need to improve the functioning of the foreign worker program to allow Canadian companies to bring in the skilled people they need to fill critical shortages. Over the course of the last several months, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), the two federal ministry responsible for the administration of this program, announced the creation of two Foreign Worker Unit offices, in Vancouver and Calgary respectively, as well as the publication of regional demand lists for the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Employers seeking to bring in workers appearing on these lists will be able to apply for “Labour Market Opinions” without having to engage in expensive advertising first. Although this is not the answer to all of the problems that beset the entry of foreign workers into Canada, it is a step in the right direction and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg, should be commended for doing something to make the program more user-friendly to employers who, especially in Western Canada, are increasingly desperate for skilled workers.
Now the not so good news:
- Another year passes without an Ontario Provincial Nominee Program. Ontario remains the only province that has not established a provincial immigration program allowing it to select its own immigrants. The problem is not that Ontario does not get its share of immigration to Canada. Our largest province gets over 50% of all immigrants to the country. But Ontario still does not have a way to identify the skilled workers and business immigrants it needs most and ensure they get into the province as quickly as possible. As a result, the province’s employers and its rural communities are not getting the results they should from our immigration system.
- Passports to be required for all air travelers to the United States. Starting January 23, 2007, all air travelers, including Canadians, will require passports to enter the U.S. This requirement will come into effect despite considerable efforts on the part of our federal government to exempt Canadians from this 9/11-inspired reform. As it stands now, unless a special exemption is made for Canadians, the passport requirement will apply to all those traveling by land as well starting June 2009.
- No answer in sight to lengthy overseas processing times. Skilled workers, business immigrants, parents and grandparents, among other classes of immigrants, are still experiencing extremely long processing times in many Canadian visa offices around the world. So far, the Conservative government has offered no solutions to this vexing problem. The Simplified Application Process introduced last September was an acknowledgment of the fact that it doesn’t make sense to ask applicants for a detailed application package if it is just going to sit on a visa office shelf for several years. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are losing many skilled and desirable immigrants because they are not able to put their lives on hold for 3-6 years while our government decides whether to admit them or not.
So, as 2007 begins, there are still a few things that can still be done to improve our immigration system. Let’s hope some of them are among our governments’ New Year’s resolutions.
A Good News Month for B.C. on the Immigration Front
The last month has brought some good news for B.C. with respect to immigration and the entry of foreign workers into the province.
First, there was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s annual report to Parliament released on October 31, 2006. Although the immigration targets for 2007 that constitute the most newsworthy elements of the report were not very surprising – the federal government has raised slightly its overall target for 2007 to a range of 240,000 to 265,000 immigrants from the 225,000 to 255,000 range targeted for 2006 – the report also contained the final numbers of immigrants admitted in 2005 which point to some very encouraging trends for the province of British Columbia.
In 2005, B.C. received 44,767 immigrants. That’s the second highest provincial total in the country and a big boost from the 37,018 we received in 2004. Even more encouraging, when you look at the breakdown of the types of immigrants we are getting, it is clear that the province is attracting some of the most desirable immigrants – at least in terms of economic impact – that Canada is receiving.
Of the total number of immigrants received by B.C. in 2005, the province’s portion is heavily weighted towards economic class immigrants like skilled workers, business immigrants and provincial nominees. Just over 30,000 of our 2005 immigrants fell into these categories. Almost half of the total amount, 21,809, were skilled workers and another 6,520 were business immigrants. The latter number represents the highest total of business immigrants destined to any individual province – this despite the fact that Ontario receives far more total immigrants than us or any other province with over 140,000 in 2005. We also had the second highest total of province nominees admitted, a category of immigrants that makes perhaps the largest per capita economic impact.
It is also noteworthy that the types of immigrants that experience a longer lag period before bringing a positive economic impact -- Convention Refugees and other types of protection persons -- are for some reason not choosing to settle in B.C. in the numbers they are choosing other provinces. We received only 2,156 protected persons in 2005. This is only 10% of what Ontario received (their total was 21,890) and less than both Quebec (7,161 total protection persons), a province which received a comparable number of total immigrants (43,308), and even Alberta (2,247 total protected persons), a province that received less than half (19,399) of the total number of immigrants we did.
What is clear from these numbers is that for whatever reason – our more temperate climate, our growing economy, our cultural and ethnic diversity – B.C. is getting the some of the best and the brightest of those destined to Canada. Our slice of the immigrant pie is, while not the largest, arguably the most desirable of any province in Canada from an economic perspective.
Now, for employers in the province desperate for skilled and experienced workers this may come as cold comfort. But that is where the other bit of recent good news comes in. Several months ago, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg, announced the opening of two new Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) offices in Calgary and Vancouver devoted to assisting employers and their representatives navigate their way through our very complicated foreign worker policies and programs. But as readers of this column will know, CIC is often a bystander when it comes to the administration of the foreign worker program. While CIC sets the policy, the program is largely administered in Canada by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development (HRSDC) and, to a lesser extent, the Canadian Board Services Agency. But this past month, Minister Solberg showed he was not willing to allow bureaucratic divisions to prevent progress and announced several new initiatives designed specifically to assist employers in B.C. and Alberta, where demand for skilled and sometimes unskilled labour is highest.
The most important of these initiatives involves the creation of lists of occupations in demand -- one for B.C. and one for Alberta -- that will be used by Service Canada, the service delivery arm of HRSDC, to process applications from employers in these provinces seeking to bring in foreign workers. The net benefit for employers will be that they will not need to advertise the positions extensively before submitting their application to Service Canada if the occupation they are seeking to fill is on their provincial list.
This is definitely is a step in the right direction. However, one factor that was not addressed in the announcement of these initiatives was the fact that Service Canada is experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of applications for foreign workers from employers in B.C. and Alberta. The regional lists will no doubt bring even higher numbers of applications in these provinces as employers will be less reluctant to initiate applications when they no longer need to invest in extensive advertising beforehand. But this raises the possibility of whether the two-month or more processing times for these applications will now be increasing rather than decreasing as they should be.
Now, no word yet if Minster Solberg will be able to deliver increased staff to another Minister’s department. That would be an extraordinary bureaucratic feat indeed. But it is what’s needed next to ensure that the foreign workers that B.C. admits will be as beneficial to the province as the immigrants we are now lucky enough to be attracting.
Media Duped by Politicians into Focusing on Titillating Immigration Case
Over my dozen plus years as an immigration consultant and government official I have learned not to expect much from the media in terms of covering the issue of immigration. For some reason, immigration is an issue virtually all forms of media in our country have never, in my experience at least, covered well or accurately. One of my goals with this column has been to attempt to shed some light on the topic from an insider’s perspective as well as to comment on the real issues when they arise and describe the difficult choices that governments are required to make.
But it is harder to blame the media for its bad reporting on immigration when they are led to it by senior political leaders who should know better. I am speaking specifically of a case that has recently received national attention in which a U.S. citizen and Canadian permanent resident, Malcolm Watson, was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and third degree sexual abuse. His conviction and sentence were delivered by a U.S. court since the criminal acts occurred in Buffalo, New York where he worked as a teacher in a private school. His victim was a 15-year-old student at the school who did not want to testify against him at a public trial because, according the prosecutor in the case, “[s]he was in love with him” and “didn’t want to be the means of his public disgrace and downfall.”
As a result of these circumstances, the prosecutor reached a plea bargain that allowed Mr. Watson to serve three years probation while continuing to reside in Southern Ontario, where he has lived – as a legal permanent resident -- for years with his wife and three children. Mr. Watson must report to his probation officer in New York State on a regular basis and is therefore required to cross the border to do so (he now works in Ontario as a salesman after having lost his job as a teacher).
It didn’t take long for Canadian politicians at the highest levels to begin expressing their outrage at this arrangement. Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty, said the U.S. was using Canada as a “dumping ground” for their sex offenders. The federal government, not to be undone, immediately committed to attempting to remove Mr. Watson from Canada and strip him of his permanent resident status. This, despite the fact that his actions may not even be illegal in Canada where the age of consent is 14 (there are exceptions to this rule for people, like teachers, who are in relationships of trust with minors so the feds do at least have an arguable case).
In the meantime, the federal government attempted to detain Mr. Watson while his immigration case was being decided. This didn’t last long after an independent adjudicator rightly found him to be of little threat to society and therefore freed him on bail. After all, if he was a true threat to society it is unlikely the U.S. criminal proceeding would have resulted in his sentence of probation.
Here we have a prime example of opportunistic Canadian politicians seemingly unable to pass up a golden opportunity to put the blame on a supposedly lax American justice system for not locking up someone for having sexual relations with a minor. These same politicians know full well that, had this offense occurred in Canada, the sentence, if he had been convicted at all, would likely be about the same if not even more lenient. (The maximum sentence Mr. Watson faced in the U.S. for the charges against him was one year in prison.) Moreover, it is worth noting that the concept of serving a sentence in one’s country of residence is enshrined in Canadian and American law by a treaty that allows citizens of each country to request to serve their sentences in their country of citizenship despite being tried and sentenced in the other country (this of course does not apply to Mr. Watson because he is only a permanent resident of Canada).
But the real outrage here is that the case continues to command national media coverage and even attracted the attention of senior politicians from Prime Minister Stephen Harper on down – who, if they understood their role, would refrain from commenting on the specifics of this case while it was being adjudicated according to the due process of the tribunal system – while hundreds of serious, dangerous criminals with permanent residence status remain free in Canada. Many of these individuals will commit further crimes before they are ever detained or deported, if indeed they are. The difference between these cases and Mr. Watson’s is that they committed their crimes in Canada. They were freed -- on bail or parole or probation -- by the Canadian criminal justice system. And the immigration enforcement agency of the federal government is not properly staffed to be able to keep track of them all, let alone round them up and remove them from the country (this situation was most recently revealed by immigration lawyer Richard Kurland last year and, commendably, reported on by many media outlets).
So instead we are entertained with the story of a teacher who couldn’t keep his hands off a student. A story in which the American justice system can be portrayed as defective and lenient by demagogic Canadian politicians. Perhaps it was too much to ask to expect the media to turn its attention to more serious and pressing matters. But we certainly have a right to expect more of our political leaders.
Labour Shortages in Western Canada Create Policy Challenges
In mid-September I had the opportunity to attend and speak at a conference in Calgary on recruiting and employing foreign workers in Western Canada. The conference was attended by a number of immigration professionals like myself as well as by recruitment and executive search firms. But most of those in attendance were from industry: HR professionals and the like who are realizing that their companies are facing a growing need to recruit workers from abroad.
These needs are especially acute in northern Alberta where the tar sands in the Fort McMurray area have created an economic boom and a desperate need for both skilled and unskilled labour. Stories abound of Tim Horton’s and similar fast food chains offering $20 an hour as a starting wage. On top of this, Alberta in general is enjoying unprecedented economic growth that has created labour shortages across a number of different economic sectors.
BC is in a similar situation although it has generally not reached the crisis point in most areas. But the coming Winter Olympic Games in 2010 combined with generally positive economic conditions have created shortages of workers across the construction sector, to use one familiar example.
In the best of circumstances, the need for various industries to look abroad to fill the many vacancies they are experiencing would present a challenge for companies that may have never faced this prospect before. But, from a government policy and operational standpoint, we are far from experiencing the best of possible circumstances. In fact, it could be argued that our Foreign Worker Program is ill designed as well as under-resourced and that this situation will not improve until significant reforms are undertaken.
The first problem stems from the fact that the federal government’s responsibility for selecting and admitting foreign workers is spread across several different federal ministries and agencies. Foreign worker policy is set by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). But most employers must first deal with Service Canada (formerly Human Resources and Skills Development Canada) to get permission to bring in a foreign worker. And if they get pass that hurdle, their foreign worker may be applying at a port of entry to an officer of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) or to an overseas visa office, depending on where the individual is coming from.
This “alphabet soup” of federal government departments is enough to turn many employers and would-be foreign workers off the system altogether. But if they are strong-willed – or desperate – enough to persist, they are faced with the fact that the system does not respond in timeframes that most employers would view as reasonable. In BC and Alberta, Service Canada processes “Labour Market Opinions” – essentially, the federal permission that an employer needs to bring in a foreign worker -- in approximately 3-5 months at present. And that doesn’t include the 2-3 months it may take to have the foreign worker’s application processed overseas by a visa office.
Most employers will tell you that they need their workers here “yesterday”, not half a year from now. So what is being done by government to address this problem that promises to have dire economic consequences if not properly addressed?
Well, CIC recently announced the opening of two offices, one in Calgary and one in Vancouver, to screen requests from employers to bring in foreign workers. The problem is these offices are only able to respond to applications that deal with bringing in workers who, because of particular provisions in the regulations (like those taking into account free-trade agreements, for example), are “Labour Market Opinion-exempt” and therefore don’t need to go through Service Canada to obtain prior permission. This constitutes only a small portion of all those foreign workers that are admitted and it specifically doesn’t include the majority of those that are most desperately required by many industries. As the system is presently structured, CIC simply is unable to do more than this to streamline the process because it is not within their ministerial responsibility to field employers’ requests for foreign workers. By statute, they have appointed Service Canada to handle this task.
Service Canada, meanwhile, has a mandate that extends well beyond the foreign worker program. It administers the multi-billion dollar Employment Insurance program as well as many other programs related to the Canadian labour market. Its core function is to protect and service the domestic labour market which, it could be argued, leads to its an ambivalent attitude toward granting permission to Canadian employers to bring in foreign workers. I would contend that as long as the issuance of Labour Market Opinions is the responsibility of this agency, the program will languish as a lower priority and be under-resourced when it is most needed by industry.
There are no easy answers here. One option would be for the provinces to take a greater role in foreign worker selection as they are beginning to do with economic immigration through the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). Certainly it could be argued that individual provinces have a better handle on the labour shortages that exist within their borders than the relatively distance federal government in Ottawa has. And it is reasonable to expect that they would be able to respond to these shortages in a more timely fashion. However, at present, the provinces are generally a long way off from having the policy infrastructure, institutional knowledge and dedicated resources to deal with this important function.
Once upon a time in Canada, there was a ministry called, in blatantly sexist fashion, Manpower and Immigration. It eventually was renamed Employment and Immigration Canada and it combined the functions of managing and administering the foreign worker program with overall responsibility for immigration selection and admission. Perhaps it is time to return to the past and include these important federal government functions in the same department. Certainly, from the perspective of employers crying out for foreign labour, it could only be an improvement on the current system.
Simplified Immigration Application Process May Lead to Further Changes
Last week Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) implemented a new, simplified process for overseas immigration applications. Those applying under the Economic Class (skilled workers, investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed) now only need to submit a fairly simple three-page application form along with the processing fee to begin the process of having their application assessed.
All other documents – language test results, employment reference letters, diplomas and degrees, business documents, etc. – do not need to be submitted by the applicant until much later in the process at the request of the visa office.
Only those who are applying through the visa office in Buffalo, New York are fully exempt from this new policy. Also exempt are skilled workers applying with arranged employment in Canada and applicants to the province of Quebec or one of the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs).
The rationale behind this policy is twofold: first, since economic class applications are typically taking several years to process, it doesn’t make sense to ask for documentation like, in the case of business immigrants, financial statements and tax returns that will have to be updated when the visa office finally gets around to reviewing the file. According to CIC, visa offices have begun spending far too much time updating skilled worker and business immigration files that were submitted years ago.
The second rationale was the need to preserve precious filing space in overseas missions where office space is often at a premium. The worldwide inventory of Economic Class applications is now over 500,000 persons according to CIC. Meanwhile, at current immigration levels, the average processing time for these cases is roughly 4 years. At this rate, visa offices are simply running out of room.
This new policy is generally advantageous to the applicant. It allows a skilled worker or business immigrant to begin the process of immigrating in a relatively painless way. The form required will not take more than a few minutes to complete for most applicants. Once it is filed along with the processing fee, an individual has secured their place in the queue. And when their number is called, so to speak, they are then asked to submit a full application and supporting documentation.
The more interesting thing about this new policy is the possibilities it raises in terms of how CIC might “control the intake” of applications in the future. As I noted in a column last spring, this change in policy may be the first step toward implementing an immigration “lucky draw” processing model. Under such a model, the federal government would set a ceiling on the number of full applications that would be allowed into the system each year. This ceiling would be determined both by perceived labour market needs across the country and by the processing capacity of visa offices overseas.
Applicants who have submitted the simplified application that is now required could in the future be determined to constitute a pool from which full applicants would be selected on some random basis. If selected, they would be asked to submit a full and complete application. The expectation would then be that their application would be processed in a reasonable period – perhaps in no more than 18 months.
But what is more interesting under such a model is what would happen to those whose ticket is not selected from the pool of applicants. These individuals could have their simplified applications flushed out of the system whereupon they would be told their application would not be processed any further and that they could try again next year.
The idea behind this is to have a mechanism to control the number of applications in the system and therefore manage the processing times in a more effective fashion. At present, even with the simplified application process, visa offices have no control over how many applicants apply and therefore need ultimately to be processed. Hence the lengthy processing times.
I don’t think the second part of this reform is going to happen before the next federal election. It will be a tricky thing to design and implement from a political standpoint. For example, the immigration “lucky draw” could not be truly random if Ottawa wants to maintain the current mix of countries from which it receives immigrants. A weighting process of some kind will have to be used to prevent major source countries like China and India from completing dominating the Economic Class stream.
So I doubt very much the Conservatives will take it on while they are in a minority government situation. But I do think it will get serious consideration at some point in the next two to three years. And, if adopted, it will radically change the way our immigration system determines who qualifies for permanent residence in Canada.
Dual Citizenship Remains a Contentious Issue
The recent crisis in the Middle East has once again brought to the forefront – in Canada at least -- an issue of controversy here and elsewhere: Dual citizenship. When Israel retaliated for the kidnapping and killing of its soldiers by the terrorist group Hezbollah with the bombing of Hezbollah locations in southern Lebanon, Canada and other governments around the world acted quickly to evacuate their citizens from the area.
In the case of Canada, many of our citizens living in Lebanon are actually Lebanese citizens as well. Many of them immigrated to Canada years ago, became Canadian citizens and then eventually resumed part-time or full-time residence in their country of origin.
Some Canadians are wondering why the federal government is taking emergency measures to assist in the removal of people who are actually residents and citizens of the country they are seeking to flee.
Dual citizenship has always been a contentious concept and it remains one that is far from universally accepted. For example, Canada and the United States both allow their citizens to be citizens of other countries as well. Friends of mine have both Canadian and U.S citizenship. Some were born in the U.S. to Canadian parents. Others married American spouses. They are able to travel back and forth across our shared border as a matter of right. On the way down to the States they are able to correctly answer “American” to the question: What is your citizenship? And on the way back their answer can be “Canadian”.
But countries like the People’s Republic of China and Japan do not recognize dual citizenship and do not allow their citizens to take on other nationalities. India is just now introducing a limited form of dual citizenship; they are calling it “Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI)”. As dual citizenship is not allowed under the Indian Constitution, the Indian government found it necessary to create a new legal category that essentially accomplishes the same thing.
The ability to hold more than one citizenship obviously creates opportunities for individuals who travel and work internationally. Almost anyone who has immigrated to a new country seems to be in favour of it as their preference is usually to retain their original citizenship as well as take on a new one.
However, the concept, both from a legal and philosophical point of view, is difficult for many people to accept. For example, by holding citizenship in a country it is generally thought one is owed their allegiance to that country. Can a single person hold allegiances to more than one state? What if the two countries enter into in a state of conflict or war? Would a draft-age individual have the ability or right to choose which of the two countries to fight for?
But it doesn’t take a war for dual citizenship to raise complicated questions. In a democracy, one of the major rights associated with citizenship is the ability to determine the course of your government. The rights to vote and hold elective office are important rights of citizenship in Canada and many other countries. Should Canadian citizens living overseas have the ability to vote and help determine the course of Canadian politics while also possibly doing the same in the country they reside in (assuming they are citizens there too)?
Obviously, no self-respecting democracy would allow someone to hold elective office in more than one country at the same time. But could a dual citizen get elected as a Member of Parliament in Canada, for example, and later run for office in another country, using the governing experience they gained here to their advantage overseas?
There are no easy answers to these and the many other questions the concept of dual nationality raises. But what is clear is that it is likely that more and more countries will be adopting a policy of recognizing dual citizenship in the future. As I noted above, India, a country with many millions of its former citizens residing overseas, has finally relented in allowing a limited form a dual citizenship. One wonders if China, another country with a large contingent of overseas nationals, will some day take up the issue as well.
The advantages, both for individuals living abroad seeking to retain their original citizenship, and for the country as a whole, are numerous. A policy of dual citizenship ultimately makes people more willing to emigrate and, eventually, adopt another nationality. A country with thousands or even millions of its citizens living abroad can expect to benefit from increased global contacts and commercial trade as well as a willingness of those citizens to promote the interests of their country of origin through their goodwill and other demonstrations of continued loyalty.
For the Canadian citizens residing abroad in Lebanon the benefit they enjoyed was tangible and immediate: they were granted all the protections accorded Canadian passport holders in a time of extreme crisis and danger. Having Canadian citizenship may have actually saved their lives in some cases. No doubt they now understand -- if they didn’t already -- how lucky they are to be Canadians.
Immigration a Hot Political Issue on Both Sides of the Border
As our summer heats up here in Vancouver, it seems like you can’t open a newspaper without reading news related to immigration whether it is coming from here in Canada or across the border in the United States. As an issue of political debate, clearly immigration has never been hotter.
In the U.S., President Bush, moderate Republicans and the Democrats have more or less agreed on a series of reforms that are meant to accomplish a number of things: tighten up the border with Mexico to prevent future illegal immigration; create a guest worker program to allow for a steady stream of cheap labour for American businesses; and establish a path to permanent legal residence for the millions of illegals already in the country.
Unfortunately for the President and the supporters of the U.S. Senate bill described above, the U.S. has a very cumbersome system of government which requires two separate, and very different, bodies of the legislature, i.e., Congress, to pass laws before they can be signed by the president. In the other half of Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, the majority Republicans are using immigration to rally support for themselves and their views – which are much more enforcement-minded and, some would say, anti-immigrant -- as they begin to look toward their re-election campaigns this fall.
As a result, instead of trying to develop a compromise piece of legislation somewhere between what has been passed by the House and the Senate, the House Republicans are going to hold summer hearings on the Senate version of the legislation across the country. No doubt they will use these hearings to discuss the merits of some other, rather extreme ideas like building a massive wall along the Mexico-U.S. border. And this means it is very likely that nothing will be accomplished by the federal government to repair America’s immigration system this year.
Ultimately, the problem lies in the conflicted views of the American people on this issue. While U.S. businesses are in dire need of immigrant workers, specifically those who will work for low pay, the American public is clearly concerned about a flow of immigration, especially the illegal variety, that appears to be out of control and ever more threatening to their security. The political class is more or less reflecting this tension with Mr. Bush and the moderates in his party, as well as Democrats, trying to find a way to legitimize the status of the many immigrant workers who will come to the U.S. regardless of the legal or physical hurdles put in their way. While House Republicans are representing the views of those who would rather try to close the doors completely rather than face the true complexity of the problem.
In Canada, we are not immune to the tension surrounding the issue of immigration. A poll released on the same day Prime Minister Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian people for the head tax charged to Chinese Canadians from the 1880’s until 1923 showed that more people are now expressing dissatisfaction with our immigration policy than satisfaction. While the margin is slight (33 per cent dissatisfied compared to 29 per cent who are satisfied) this reflects a change from previous polls that have consistently shown majority support for our immigration policy. No doubt this change is a reflection of concerns that exist as a result of the arrest of the 17 individuals charged with terrorist activity in the Toronto area earlier in the month. (This despite the fact that, as I pointed out in my column last week, those individuals are all either Canadian-born or long-time legal residents.)
Our current federal government appears, for its own reasons, to be trying to paint immigration in a positive light. Realizing that it needs votes from new Canadians concentrated in our major urban centres if it is ever going to be re-elected with a majority, the Conservatives are using symbolism and incremental changes to try to project an image of being pro-immigration. This reflects some pragmatism on their part given that their core supporters are probably among those registering dissatisfaction with our current immigration policy.
Things like the apology for the Chinese head tax, the reduction of the Right of Permanent Residence fee by 50 per cent, and changes to our immigration laws to allow children adopted abroad to claim citizenship more quickly are all designed to give immigrants and new citizens a reason to take a second look at the Conservatives and what they stand for in time for the next election.
Whatever their motivations, let’s hope our leaders in both Canada and the U.S. find a way to make real progress on the issue of immigration in the coming months. Because both of our economies are ever more in need of new workers, whether they be the well-trained and highly skilled variety or those that will do the jobs and work for the wages that North Americans will no longer accept. And this means both countries need immigration systems that work -- and work well – to the benefit of all of us.
Don’t Blame Immigration for Homegrown Terrorist Threat
The arrest earlier this month of 17 suspects alleged to be involved in a terrorist plot in the Toronto area has raised questions in the minds of many people about the wisdom of our current immigration policy. However, as more facts about this case are revealed, it is important to keep in mind that, based on the information that has been reported to date, all of these individuals are either long-term legal residents of Canada or Canadian citizens.
In many ways, this fact makes this case even more disturbing for us as a people and a society. Should the charges against these men prove accurate – of course, like all of those accused of criminal behaviour in Canada these individuals are innocent until proven guilty -- we can’t dismiss them as non-Canadian extremists who brought their plans of violence and hatred of Western society from far off, distant lands. Rather, for all intents and purposes, these young men are products of Canadian society. They grew up here, attended Canadian schools and lived and worked in our communities. And, if the charges are true, they may have also learned to hate and plot against us while living in our midst.
Obviously, while they have the legal status of Canadian citizens, based on the charges against them it appears that they may have failed somehow to become part of Canadian society in any meaningful sense. At the core of what it means to be Canadian is to hold sacred values such as tolerance, equality, the rule of law and respect for diversity and the democratic process. Not since the Quebec separatist group the FLQ in the early 1970’s has Canada experienced organized terrorists threats from within. It is simply un-Canadian to engage in violence as a means of political expression, which is to our credit as a people.
However, our values as Canadians don’t exist independently from our population. In order to continue to exist as a peaceful, tolerant and culturally diverse country, each succeeding generation must be instilled with these values and undertake to live them in their daily lives.
For the last several decades, Canada’s immigration policy has been based on the idea that applicants seeking permanent residence not be discriminated against or disadvantaged based on ethnicity or country of origin. Legally speaking, applicants from any country in the world have an equal chance of attaining immigration to Canada since they are assessed based on meritocratic factors such as their skills, education, experience, language ability. The incredible richness of our diversity is a product of that policy.
As Canadians I believe we all benefit from the privilege of living in a country comprised of people who came -- or whose ancestors came -- from all corners of the globe. Each of our lives is enriched immeasurably by the multiculturalism in our midst. But the last thing we should do is take this privilege for granted. To continue to benefit from our grand experiment in “global living” we need to ensure we all do our part in passing on the values that have made this country what it is.
Part of this duty involves ensuring that we reach out to – and get to know -- others who may not be part of our immediate community or ethnic group. Two Toronto-area Muslim Members of Parliament were interviewed earlier this week by The Globe and Mail about the arrest of the terrorist suspects. Speaking to his fellow Muslims, one of them, MP Wajid Khan, said, “There is nothing wrong with being religious, so when you eat Ramadan, invite your neighbours for god’s sake. You can’t say you don’t know people. You know people, you go to work with them. So that has to start. We should have a true multiculturalism.” Mr. Khan also noted that the threat of homegrown terrorism “is a broader problem, it is a Canadian problem. There is no such thing as a Christian [problem], Muslim [problem], or this, that, or the other.”
If Canada has produced terrorists within our midst, it is not something that can be blamed on admitting too many immigrants or accepting immigrants from certain countries or ethnic groups. Rather, it is a failure of Canadian society as a whole to live up to its greatest ideals. And this is something we all have a role in correcting
More Work and Immigration Options Available to International Students
The federal government and many of the provinces are starting to recognize that international students make great potential immigrants. As a result, various avenues are opening up to allow international students to work in Canada and even convert their status to that of a permanent resident.
This is a welcome development after years in which students came to Canada from all over the world to study at our post-secondary educational institutions only to be given very few options to work or immigrate if they decided they were interested in staying on a more permanent basis.
When you think about it, this made no sense. International students, especially those that complete university programs in Canada, make ideal skilled immigrants. They have already spent years here adapting to our culture and refining their language skills. They have also often built up local networks of contacts that can allow them to enter the labour market fairly smoothly. And, most importantly, they have gained valuable, marketable skills at some of our finest schools of higher learning that they are often eager to utilize in our labour market if given the opportunity.
On April 27, 2006 the federal government announced the full implementation of a program to allow international students studying at public colleges and universities to obtain work permits after their first year of study in Canada. Until now, international students were restricted to working only in “on-campus” jobs that are often scarce and hard to find. But under this program, these study permit holders can work up to 20 hours a week on or off campus during the school year and full-time hours when they are on summer break.
This is obviously a welcome development for the students themselves as they are now able to earn money in Canada to help defray the considerable costs of studying in Canada. But it also makes a great deal of sense in terms of our immigration and economic policies. A student who has the opportunity to work while in Canada will make an even better skilled immigrant should they choose to pursue that option at the end of their studies. And the potential routes to immigration for these students are also increasing.
For years, graduates of public, post-secondary institutions have had the ability to apply for a one-year work permit after completing their studies if they were able to obtain a job offer related to their field of studies upon graduation. For those who have studied outside the major urban centres of Canada -- Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal – this work permit can now be extended for a second year. The rationale behind this policy, which was introduced last year, is to encourage skilled immigrants to locate outside of our three largest cities. It is believed that international students who have lived in some of our smaller college and university towns are more likely to stay in them if they can work there and, ultimately, obtain permanent residence.
The fastest route to obtaining immigration status for these students is through the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). Since 2002, British Columbia has had a dedicated category of its PNP for international students who have graduated from a public university and obtained a permanent job offer in the province related to their field of study. Manitoba now also has a similar component to its PNP. The PNPs across the country have the flexibility and desire to nominate international students who have studied in their province, gained valuable work experience, and expressed an interest in staying permanently. Average processing times under this program are 6-12 months.
The other major immigration option for international students is through the federal Skilled Worker Class. While the processing times are considerably longer, this category does give extra points for having studied and worked in Canada before or while applying for immigration.
Overall, things are looking better for the approximately 150,000 foreign students in Canada, some of whom may want to do more here than just study. This is good news for them. But it is also something we should all welcome because, in this age of increasing skill shortages, these students can help compose the highly skilled Canadian workforce of our future.
Conservatives Not Planning Major Changes in Immigration
Over the course of the last weekend, I attended the Canadian Bar Association’s annual national conference for immigration lawyers held this year in Quebec City. With many of the federal government’s top immigration officials in attendance, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Honourable Monte Solberg, it was a good opportunity to gauge where this particular government is headed in the area of immigration policy after its first 100 days in office.
As you may have heard already, the new Conservative government’s first budget tabled last week contains a drop in the Right of Permanent Residence Fee (RPRF) from $975 to $490. In the budget, the Conservatives have also committed to acting in the area of international credentials to ensure skilled immigrants have an easier and more successful transition into the Canadian labour market. But beyond that, it does not appear this government is contemplating any major changes to our immigration policy or immigrant selection system.
There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, as a minority government, any controversial policy changes would no doubt attract the attention of the Conservatives’ foes and their representatives in Parliament. Opposition parties including the Liberals and NDP would relish the opportunity to paint this government as anti-immigrant as part of their efforts to set the stage for another election in a year or so.
More fundamentally, I think this government, from the Prime Minister’s Office on down, understands that immigration is an issue that many voters in this country will use as a litmus test of sorts for the “new” Conservative party. Many urban voters and new Canadians are suspending judgment as to whether this government can properly represent them, especially in policy areas where values are a component such as immigration. And the Conservatives are keen to represent themselves as a moderate, centrist party that can attract votes in the major urban centres of Canada where most new immigrants reside.
The recent announcement that a full judicial inquiry will be conducted into the Air India bombing that occurred over two decades ago is a product of the Conservatives desire to attract support from ethnic voters in Canada, in this case Indo-Canadians.
With this in mind, I believe the Conservatives have decided to more or less maintain the status quo with respect to immigration for the foreseeable future. This means no drastic changes in the level of immigrants we approve each year (currently at around 250,000) and no fundamental changes in how we select immigrants.
This is not necessarily a good thing. As I have discussed in previous columns, there are elements of our immigrant selection system that are definitely in need of reform and revision. The wait times for federally selected skilled workers, for example, are far too long and mechanisms need to be developed to control the intake of these applications before this can be changed. Moreover, there are serious questions as to whether we are selecting the right kind of skilled workers and whether changes are needed to ensure Canadian employers are getting the kind of skills and experience they need in an environment of increasing skill shortages in a number of sectors.
Having said all this, it is now apparent that the sources of skilled immigrants that will be arriving in coming years will be changing somewhat from those that arrived in the last 10 years. But this has nothing to do with the change in government that occurred in the last election. Rather, the immigration law that was put into place in 2002, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is having a profound impact on the number of applicants from countries like China, for example.
As reported by federal officials in Quebec City this past weekend, the annual number of total immigration applications to the visa offices in Beijing and Hong Kong has, in last three years, dropped to approximately one-third of what it was in 2001. This is a consequence of the increased emphasis on English and French language ability in the skilled worker selection grid that has been in place since 2002. As a result, in the next few years, China may drop from our number one source country for immigrants to number two, with India taking over the top position.
In the short term at least, it appears this government is content to address the consequences of the changes made to our immigration law and policy by the last government and perhaps make some minor changes to the system that was put in place in 2002. I expect this government will try to focus attention on its efforts to remove immigrants who enter the country illegally or commit crimes after arriving but will otherwise not pursue a policy much different from that of its predecessor. In the area of immigration at least, a Conservative government in Ottawa appears to be a recipe for more of the same.
