New Rules Coming for Entry into U.S.
The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent “war on terrorism” that has resulted appear like they will continue to impact the way we travel for years, if not decades, to come.
In the very near future, new legislation passed on the United States Congress will begin to have an effect on the flow of tourists and other visitors to the U.S. The U.S. Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 contains provisions that will being to kick in at the end of this year and come fully into effect at the end of 2007.
Essentially, the law requires that all travelers entering the U.S. -- including returning Americans -- carry passports or some other, yet to be determined form of secure I.D. Beginning on December 31, 2006 this will apply to all air and sea travelers into the U.S. And beginning on December 31, 2007 it will be applied to all those crossing at land borders.
While there are still discussions happening between the Canadian and U.S. governments about the possibility of exempting Canada from these requirements, it appears increasingly likely that a flat out exemption is not in the cards. In one way or another, Canadians will have to show proof of citizenship through some form of secure I.D. when traveling to the U.S. in the future. And for most Canadians, this means a passport.
Obviously this has huge implications for Canadian citizens used to going to the U.S. with nothing more than a driver’s license and a copy of their birth certificate. Naturalized citizens of Canada and permanent residents are less likely to be inconvenienced by this change because they are much more likely to a) have valid passports and b) be accustomed to carrying them as I.D. when traveling internationally.
But the effect of this law will also impact Americans since they will have to meet the same requirements as non-U.S. citizens when seeking to re-enter the U.S. and therefore won’t be admitted to Canada without first showing they have I.D. that will allow them to return home. And currently Americans are far less likely than Canadians to hold passports (24% of Americans versus 39% of Canadians have valid passports).
Many Canadian businesses across the country depend on American clientele to keep them profitable. So a major reduction in U.S. visitors to Canada could have a serious negative impact on our economy.
Because of the relatively high Canadian dollar, we are already seeing a decline in cross border traffic in some areas. One of the busiest border crossings in Canada, the Peace Bridge between Buffalo, New York and Fort Erie, Ontario, recently recorded the lowest number of crossings in a 24-hour period since records have been kept. Imagine how a continuously strong Canadian dollar combined with the new onerous requirements to travel to and from Canada will have on the number of Americans visiting us by 2008.
American officials from border states like Washington are just as concerned as their Canadian counterparts about the effect this law could have on cross-border commerce once it is fully implemented. Since 9/11 many Canadian residents, especially immigrants to Canada, have found it to be an increasingly less pleasant experience to travel to the U.S. for business or pleasure as American officials have become more vigilant. The new I.D. requirements could be enough for many people to decide to go shopping or vacation elsewhere.
Some, including the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Denis Coderre, have proposed a new, high-tech, national I.D. card as a solution that will allow for the continued efficient flow of people and goods between our two countries. However, such a system will likely take years to implement and would probably end up costing billions of dollars. Moreover, the notion of a compulsory, government-issued I.D. goes against the traditions of civil liberties that exist in both Canada and the U.S. because of the amount of information it would put in the hands of government and the invasions of personal privacy it could lead to.
Others are calling for a “North American security parameter” that would involve harmonizing our border control and immigration policies with the U.S. to a greater degree and allow for the sharing of information and intelligence between the two countries. Many Canadians, however, are uncomfortable with the implications this would have on our sovereignty and our ability to formulate policy in these areas as an independent country.
In the short term it appears that a lot more Canadians will be requiring passports if they expect to continue to make regular visits to our neighbour to the south. At the very least, expect the lines at the passport office to get a little bit longer over the next 18 months.
Immigration Consultants Are Now Regulated
April 13, 2006 marks a significant date for non-lawyer immigration representatives in Canada. By Thursday, all “immigration consultants”, as they have come to be known, must have at least attempted to meet the standards that have been set by the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) for full membership in order to continue to practice.
In late 2003, the then-Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Denis Coderre, announced a plan to regulate immigration consultants. Until then, anyone who wanted to could call themselves an immigration consultant and represent, for a fee, clients applying for immigration. Immigration lawyers, public interest groups and many consultants themselves had found this to be unacceptable.
Prior to CSIC, clients of unscrupulous consultants who had been ripped off or given incompetent representation had few options available to them. Given that prospective immigrants are often in a vulnerable position with respect to the Canadian legal system because of a lack of language ability and the fact that they are usually overseas and unable to access Canadian courts, a workable regulatory system was needed to ensure consumer protection.
After considerable efforts on the part of voluntary organizations representing consultants and the issuance of several reports over the years by various government and parliamentary committees calling for regulation, it finally became a reality.
From April 2004 until now, all members of CSIC, an independent, non-profit organization, have been what are called “transitional members”. As the transition period is ending on Thursday, members who have met the requirements for full membership, which include English or French language testing and a comprehensive test of competency, will become full members. Thereafter, full members will be allowed to identify themselves according to the designation Certified Canadian Immigration Consultant (CCIC). (Those who have attempted these tests but not yet met the required standard have until October 31, 2006 to re-write and pass the exams.)
(Full disclosure: Over the course of the last five months, I have done some communications work for CSIC. However, this column was neither commissioned nor paid for by CSIC. As well, I am a member of CSIC myself.)
For those seeking the assistance of someone in the field of immigration, this is all fairly good news. In the very near future, consumers can be assured that all certified immigration consultants will have a professional level of knowledge, competence and language ability.
If you are considering hiring someone to act on your behalf (or on behalf of your family member) you should check to ensure this person is either a Canadian lawyer (i.e., a member of one of Canada’s provincial law societies) or a member of CSIC. These are the only individuals now legally authorized to represent applicants applying for immigration to Canada. Each CSIC member is issued a membership number that they can provide you as proof of membership.
The main goal of regulating immigration consultants is to protect the public, specifically those in need of immigration services of some kind. As noted, many of these individuals are overseas and may have difficulty accessing information as to who can or cannot act on their behalf. CSIC has set up an informative website, www.csic-scci.ca, which lists all of their members as well as how to lodge a complaint if you are dissatisfied with the services that have been provided by a CSIC member.
For regulation to be a success, the Canadian public, as well as those interested in becoming Canadians, need to be properly informed. If unregulated consultants continue to be hired by individuals seeking immigration services, whether out of ignorance or deception, the regulatory system will not have its desired effect. Consumers ultimately need to be responsible for the choices they make. At this time, CSIC is primarily focused on regulating its members; therefore, if a consumer hires a non-CSIC member consultant they are putting themselves in a very vulnerable position with respect to consumer protection.
Regulation of consultants was long overdue when it finally was enacted two years ago. I believe it is in everyone’s interest that it is a success and that those seeking immigration services have proper assurance that they will get competent representation when they hire a certified consultant to act on their behalf. The immigration consulting industry will be healthier because of regulation and consumers will be better served by it.
Multiculturalism and Immigration
It seems every once in a while multiculturalism becomes a topic for intense discussion and debate in Canada and around the world. Most recently, this debate has been brought about in part by the acts of terrorism that occurred in the United Kingdom last summer and the rioting that has occurred in immigrant communities in France, Denmark and other European countries in the last year. Given the sources of much of this unrest, many Western countries have decided to re-examine the ways in which they go about integrating immigrants into the wider population.
Although multiculturalism has been the official policy of the Canadian government since 1971, some would argue it has never been fully accepted by segments of our population. This despite the fact that the policy was more or less enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. (Section 27 of the Charter reads: “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”)
Last week The Globe and Mail published an online poll that asked: “Is it time for Canada to abandon its multiculturalism policy and insist that immigrants adopt Canadian cultural values?” I would argue that this is not necessarily an “either or” proposition. In fact, a true multi-cultural policy should involve immigrants adopting core Canadian values why at the same time having the freedom to retain the culture of their homeland should they choose to do so.
Nobel Prize winning scholar Amartya Sen put it quite well recently went he contrasted the “plural monoculturalism” he sees advocated and practiced in his adopted country of Great Britain (he immigrated there from India in the 1950’s) with a true multiculturalism that recognizes and supports the cultural freedom of immigrants and others to make choices that may or may not be in line with their cultural traditions.
The point he makes is that a true exercise of cultural liberty involves more than settling in a new country among people of similar backgrounds and then simply co-existing with your fellow countrymen and women from within distinct cultural communities. He also points out that, conversely, native-born Brits, or Canadians for that matter, have a responsibility to broaden their cultural knowledge and interactions to recognize the contributions to our shared culture that immigrants and others are making and have made throughout our history.
For example, in the Canadian context, the culture of our Aboriginal peoples has obviously been marginalized and neglected over the years. How is an Aboriginal Canadian supposed to react when he or she hears a Canadian of European ethnicity talk about how immigrants don’t do enough become “real” Canadians? How many Canadians really make the effort or take the time to learn anything about the culture of the “original” Canadians?
If Canadians by birth have a responsibility to understand their culture in a broader context – recognizing the contributions, history and traditions of both Aboriginal peoples as well as the immigrants who have shaped our culture more recently – immigrants of a more recent vintage have the same duty to become aware of their new cultural environment.
I would argue that Canadian citizenship must mean more than the ability to carry our passport. New Canadians have a duty to understand and adopt certain core Canadian values such as those embodied by the aforementioned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tolerance, respect of difference, social solidarity, equality, personal freedom and democracy are all at the core of what it means to be Canadian. Indeed, in many cases, these values are what have attracted immigrants to Canada in the first place.
So, properly conceived, multiculturalism is a two-way street. Immigrants who come to Canada espousing values incompatible with our own – e.g., the subjugation of women or the preaching of violence against people of different faiths or nationalities -- should not expect to have these values incorporated into the Canadian identity. They must recognize they have come to a country whose core values are not reconcilable with ideologies or actions based on inequality or intolerance.
Having said that, within the parameters of our core values, what is means to be a Canadian is constantly in flux. Generations of newcomers of countries like China, India, the Philippines, Iran, Korea, Pakistan and countless others have shaped, and continue to shape, the identity of this country in important and essential ways. Our multicultural identity is best viewed as a work in progress. And it is also one that requires us – new Canadians and native-born ones alike -- to work at it constantly to make it a success.
Future Policy on Skilled Worker Applications
The new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg, made some interesting comments when he was interviewed by this paper a couple of weeks ago.
One of the key decisions that will have to be made by he and his Cabinet colleagues is how to reform the federal selection system for skilled workers. The present system is essentially broken in a number of respects. In previous columns I have talked about the fact that many of the skilled workers the system is selecting are not the ones needed or desired by our 21st century labour market.
But beyond that issue, there is the one of client service and how to address the extremely long processing times experienced by skilled workers applying to immigrate here. Because of the fact that there is a backlog of over 200,000 applications held in visa offices overseas, a skilled worker applicant applying now can typically expect to wait anywhere from 2-6 years depending on which visa office they have submitted their application to.
Obviously, we cannot expect to attract the “best and brightest” around the world by taking their application and then depositing it in a black hole of processing limbo from which it only emerges years later. Such people have an understandable expectation of being advised in a reasonable period as to when they can expect to start their new life in a new country.
Therefore, it was interesting to hear Minister Solberg comment on the situation in the visa offices in China and claim that it will be a priority of the Conservative government to reduce the backlog – or “inventory” as the federal bureaucracy likes to refer to it -- of applications in offices like Beijing and Hong Kong. It was even more interesting to hear him hint at the ways this will be accomplished.
As most readers are aware, skilled workers are assessed based on a points system that considers such factors as their language ability, age, education, work experience and ties to Canada. Currently, the pass mark is set at 67. One easy way to reduce the intake of applications, and thereby clean up the backlog, would be to simply raise the pass mark.
However, federal bureaucrats and, it appears, the new minister, are actively considering more radical changes to the system to gain a more firm control on the intake of applications. One of these models involves instituting a “lottery system” not unlike what has been traditionally employed in the U.S.
Under such a model, the federal government would set a ceiling on the number of applications that would be allowed into the system each year. This ceiling would be determined both by the perceived labour market needs across the country and by the processing capacity of visa offices overseas.
Applicants would be asked to submit an abbreviated version of the current application with a reduced fee of something in the range of say, $100. If their application was selected from the accumulated pool of these “preliminary applications” in a kind of “immigration lucky draw” they would be asked to submit a full and complete application with the rest of the processing fee. The expectation would then be that their application would be processed in a reasonable period – perhaps in no more than 18 months. If they weren’t selected, they would be told their application would not be processed any further and that they could try again next year.
The tricky part of such as system is determining how to set up the “lucky draw” to ensure that there is a desired mix of immigrants selected to apply in full each year. Based on recent application trends, if the draw were completely random, the vast majority of applicants selected to submit full applications would be coming from countries like China and India. The federal government, however, has long wanted to ensure that there is an appropriate mix of immigrants from different parts of the world. This is one of the reasons the current system sees applicants from countries like China and India experience the longest processing times in the world, while applicants from European countries, for example, where the demand to come to Canada is not as great, can still get their applications processed in 2 years or less in some cases.
So expect the feds, if they do adopt this kind of system, to employ some kind of weighted lottery system to ensure a mix of immigrants that isn’t tilted entirely to Asian countries. This will be an extremely controversial political decision and one that will have to be debated more openly than the current visa office resource allocation system that effectively limits the intake of immigrants from places like China by allowing processing times to increase to ever higher levels.
A Permanent Resident’s Obligations
It has now been over three and a half years since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) has come into effect. One of the major changes this legislation brought into effect was a revision of the residency obligations for permanent residents.
Under previous legislation, permanent residents were required to be in Canada for 6 months out of any 12-month period. But this standard was not enforced particularly strictly and many exceptions were granted in the form of “Returning Resident Permits”. In the past, it was not unusual for new permanent residents to immediately apply for a Returning Resident Permit upon landing in Canada so that they could go back to their home country for an extended period and wrap up their affairs before settling permanently in Canada.
Under IRPA the standard has been relaxed in favour of the permanent resident. But it is also enforced on a stricter basis. The present law requires that permanent residents be in Canada for 2 years (or 730 days) out of any 5-year period.
Many people are under the impression that the 5-year periods are consecutive and that you just need to qualify in each discrete period. For example, many people believe that if you landed on June 28, 2002 you would need to be in Canada for 2 years between that date and June 28, 2007. Then the same standard would apply only for the next 5-year period (June 29, 2007 to June 29, 2012). In fact, this is not the case. The 2-year requirement applies to any 5-year period and you can be required to demonstrate compliance whenever you are seeking entry to Canada or, especially, when you are applying to extend your PR card.
For example, to take the above case, an applicant who landed on June 28, 2002 may have stayed in Canada continuously from that date until June 28, 2004 (in other words, 2 years in Canada). This person could then leave Canada for a maximum of 3 years while still retaining status. But if that person stayed out for 3 years and 1 month, and then attempted entry to Canada, he or she could have their status revoked because, upon seeking entry, that person would have been in Canada for less than 730 days in the previous 5 years. That is, from July 28, 2002 to July 28 2007, he or she would have been in Canada for only 1 year and 11 months. This is the case even though the person could very well have once again met the 2-year requirement in the period from June 29, 2007 to June 29 2012.
This is an important factor to keep in mind when planning your travel abroad. The 5-year period is “rolling” and you can be required to demonstrate compliance with the 2-year residency requirement whenever seeking entry to Canada. At the airport, for example, your inability to demonstrate compliance with this requirement can lead to an immigration officer writing a report that can result in the issuance of a departure order against you. This can happen regardless of whether you have a valid PR card at the time.
This brings us to the other big change for permanent residents traveling abroad: their need to have a valid PR card when seeking to return to Canada. Because these cards are typically valid for a 5-year period, permanent residents are now in a position of having to demonstrate compliance with the residency requirement whenever they want to renew their cards.
IRPA does provide for important exceptions to the residency requirement for permanent residents. For example, you can count days you are outside of Canada accompanying your Canadian citizen spouse (or parent if you are a minor) as days in Canada. And if you are employed by a legitimate Canadian business or Canadian or provincial government and required to be outside of Canada as part of your job, these days can also be counted as days in Canada. Spouses of permanent resident employees of Canadian businesses or governments enjoy this exception as well.
But each exception is carefully defined. Anyone planning on being out of Canada for more than 3 years in any 5-year period and relying on one of these exceptions is well advised to fully document their absences from Canada and the reasons for them.
The residency obligations of permanent residents are a greater concern for a lot of new immigrants because of the need to extend PR cards. There will no doubt be many appeals launched in the coming months and years to dispute particular decisions of the immigration department. But generally speaking, the legislation is much more precise than it was prior to June 2002 and, as a result, the onus is on permanent residents to provide evidence to show they complied with the law.
The New Immigration Minister’s Challenge
Although he has only been in the job for a few days, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Monte Solberg has correctly identified one of the key challenges facing Canada’s immigration system over the next decade.
In some brief comments reported in the press last week, Minister Solberg indicated that his Conservative government is unlikely to drastically change the overall levels of immigration established by the Liberals in recent years. (Last year’s target number was 245,000 immigrants.) He also did not express a desire to re-visit the Liberals’ decision of last year to increase the number of family reunification visas issued. So sponsors seeking to bring over their parents or grandparents may hope to benefit from slightly better processing times in the future.
What Minister Solberg did indicate was that he wants to see a better match between the type of skilled immigrants we attract and the needs of Canadian employers who are often desperate for experienced, skilled individuals.
"I think partly maybe it's the mix,” Solberg said. “But it's also using some of the other tools that we have to address some of the problems we have - like the work visas."
"Maybe ultimately if they're here for a time and they're doing a good job, well, permanently land them," he said.
On paper, one would think the Canadian immigration system, which seeks to have 60% of those granted permanent residence each year come through the “economic class” or skilled worker and business immigrant categories, would provide a workable solution to our skilled labour shortage. However, recent experience has indicated there is a definite disconnect between the types of skilled immigrants that are qualifying and the kinds of workers Canadian employers are seeking.
We have heard for years the stories of PhD’s who come here from overseas only to end up driving taxis or working as security guards. While at the same time, employers in certain sectors – construction, health care, and energy and mining come to mind – are intensifying their pleas for help in finding the kinds of skills they are in desperate need of.
Canada’s skilled worker immigrants have mostly come in recent years from countries like China, India, Pakistan and South Korea. Therefore the question must be asked whether our employers are reluctant to take a chance on individuals whose experience and skills are obtained exclusively in Asia. Or is it cultural differences and language barriers that are preventing these individuals from making a full contribution to the Canadian labour market?
Regardless of the causes, it is worth considering alternate approaches to ensure that our economic class immigrants are providing the maximum benefit possible to our economy.
One such approach was alluded to by the Minister in his comments. Rather than seeking to attract skilled worker immigrants who apply from overseas and never set foot in Canada until they land as immigrants, should we be building a system driven by the specific needs of Canadian employers?
If so, building such a system will not be easy. One of the challenges is fashioning a system that can respond in the timeframes required by the labour market. Ask any construction company in need of project managers, carpenters or other skilled individuals when they need their people and they will tell you, “yesterday!” Meanwhile, it typically takes 2 years or more for a skilled immigrant’s visa application to be processed.
Work visas can certainly be processed more quickly. But they also require employers to have done the groundwork of recruiting the applicants and offering them jobs.
The key question is whether employers, industry and the provinces can take on the level of involvement required to make an “employer-driven” immigration system work. Thus far, it has been accomplished on a relatively small scale by “provincial nominee programs” like BC’s. But combined, these programs represent less than 10% of the skilled immigrants Canada accepts each year.
It is an open question as to whether an effective employer-driven system can exist on the scale of Canada’s current economic immigration program. And it will no doubt be a question our new Immigration Minister will have to ponder over the coming months.
Advice for the New Immigration Minister
This week's column is addressed to the new Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is meant to give him or her (at press time the Cabinet had not been announced) a few tips on how to improve our immigration system quickly and relatively easily.
Dear Minister:
Congratulations on your new position. You have a big job ahead of you and one that has proven to be a bigger challenge than many of your predecessors could handle. To help you get started, I have taken the liberty of providing you with some unsolicited advice. So here it goes:
1. Open up the decision-making process.
Currently, Canadian divides up the immigration pie through a secretive bureaucratic process that does not allow for democratic input or debate. As noted immigration lawyer and policy expert (and my good friend) Richard Kurland has tirelessly pointed out, each year the bureaucrats in the federal immigration department decide how many immigrant visas will be processed by each visa office. They also determine what portion of a visa office's target -- in effect, its quota -- will be allotted to the economic classes (skilled workers and business immigrants) and what portion will be devoted to spouses, parents and grandparents.
These decisions have huge consequences and directly affect the lives of thousands of Canadians and permanent residents as well as future immigrants themselves. If people are wondering why it is now taking several more years than before to sponsor your parents, this is why. Ottawa decided a while back to tilt the quota system in favour of economic class immigrants, with good reason in my view. But it did this without engaging in any real public debate or consultation. Why not give the responsibility for making these hard choices to the people we elect to make hard choices, our members of Parliament? The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is a perfect forum to have these issues debated with full public input. That way, in the future, when sponsors are wondering why the Canadian visa office in Hong Kong or Beijing is telling them they cannot process their parents' or grandparents' visa this year because they have already met their annual "target", they can know where to go to vent their displeasure.
2. Properly staff your visa offices or limit intake of applications.
This issue is very much related to the first one. Right now, there is nothing in place to stop thousands more applicants from applying for immigration each year than can be processed within a reasonable period. This has resulted in lengthy backlogs and enormous waiting times for prospective immigrants. To attract the proverbial "best and brightest" we need a system that can respond to applicants within a reasonable time. If the resources to add staff to overseas offices cannot be obtained - and there is no indication that a Conservative Cabinet will be any more generous than the Liberal one was -- then let's limit the number of applications those offices accept each year so they are in proportion to how the offices are staffed. Otherwise, we are only giving out false hope by encouraging people to put their lives on hold unnecessarily.
3. Support and encourage the growth of Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs).
I may be biased here because of my past work experience (I used to manage the BC PNP), by I truly believe - and I am not the only one - that the provinces are better placed than Ottawa to select the skilled workers and business immigrants our economy needs. The provinces are better connected to the growing businesses in their jurisdiction and better able to determine how to address their skill shortages. They can also engage in a dialogue with local governments to determine the kind of investment and entrepreneurship they should be attracting from overseas. To expand the provincial role, Ottawa really only needs to get out of the way and start to view the provinces as equal partners in the immigrant selection process.
So there, Mister or Madam Minister, are a few things to get started with. Tackling just these three things will bring about a much more accountable, effective and responsive immigrant selection system. No doubt your bureaucracy will have a whole host of other things they will try to focus your attention on. But don't lose sight of the bigger picture. After all, you have been elected to make the hard choices!
Immigration Mailbox II
As I mentioned in my inaugural column a fortnight ago, immigration has been discussed a fair bit in the federal election campaign now coming to a conclusion. With election day less than a week away, I thought I would take a closer look at some of the positions taken by the three major federal political parties on this issue.
Each of the election platforms of the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Parties addresses the issue of immigration in specific terms and, sometimes, with fairly detailed policy proposals.
The Liberals have the most detailed plan to reform the system. However, given that they have been in power for the last 12 years, one has to wonder why all their ideas for improving the system are coming right at the end of their most recent mandate. Their plan to gradually abolish the Right of Landing Fee over the next two budgets seems especially suspicious in its timing. The Liberals introduced this fee in 1995 as part of then-Finance Minister Paul Martin’s measures to balance the federal budget. While the budget has been running surpluses for many years now, the Liberals have only in the last few weeks come to the conclusion “[t]he time has come to remove this barrier.”
Having said that, the Liberals deserve some credit for spelling out in detail their plans for other aspects of the immigration system. Their proposals for assisting new skilled immigrants in overcoming labour market barriers and obtaining recognition of their international credentials – an issue that the Conservatives and NDP also address in their platforms but in rather perfunctory fashion – reflect the experience they have gained in government struggling with this important and multifaceted problem.
The Liberals also pledge more money for settlement programs ($1.3 billion over the next five years), an additional $700 million to reduce backlogs in visa offices overseas, and the creation of an “In-Canada Landing Class” to help spread the benefits of immigration beyond Canada’s three major cities.
Each of these ideas has merit. However, once again, some skepticism is warranted given the fact each of these initiatives requires significant new funding and that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during the last dozen years of Liberal rule has rarely been successful in securing more money for his/her department from Cabinet colleagues.
The Conservatives’ approach to the immigration issue is more heavily weighed on the enforcement side of things. For example, they focus on speeding up and increasing the number of deportations especially for those immigrants or illegals convicted of serious crimes. They also pledge to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow judges to order deportations as part of criminal sentences (currently deportation can only be accomplished by immigration officials and tribunals).
The Conservatives also want to give guns to the officers than man our border points and implement “face recognition and other biometric technology” at ports of entry.
On the facilitative side, a Conservative government would also cut the Right of Landing Fee and establish a “Canadian Agency for Assessment and Recognition of Credentials.” On the last point, it should be kept in mind that credential recognition and the regulation of professions such as engineering, medicine and the construction trades has traditionally been a provincial responsibility. A “made in Ottawa” or national solution may be challenging to implement.
The NDP takes a very “pro-immigrant” stance in its platform, pledging more money for the system, an increase in immigration levels, and the relaxation of certain rules for admission. They also promise to abolish the landing fee and assist in credentials recognition for skilled immigrants. Their most specific proposals involve allowing permanent residents and citizens to sponsor one additional relative, apparently regardless of relationship, over the course of a lifetime and allowing people without status in Canada to apply for landing based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The NDP platform on immigration otherwise lacks specifics and often relies on generalities. This may reflect the fact that they have little experience governing on this issue.
So, as election day approaches, these are the choices that are before us with respect to the issue of immigration. At the very least, one would hope that whomever is elected will follow through on the pledges they have made to improve a system that is currently far from perfection.
Immigration Mailbox I
Welcome to the inaugural Immigration Mailbox column. In this space, we hope to address issues and answer questions related to the issue of immigration. We welcome readers to submit their questions on the Canadian immigration system. In later columns, I will attempt to answer the questions that have been submitted.
First, a little bit about my background: I have been an immigration consultant for over a decade. Previously, I have served as the National Vice-President of the Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada (AICC) and I am a registered member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC). Most recently, I worked with the BC government where I managed the BC Provincial Nominee Program and held the position of Director of Economic Immigration Programs.
With a federal election quickly approaching, immigration is once again an issue that is in the news. This past fall, the Federal Liberals re-committed to increasing the annual number of immigrants to 300,000 by gradually increasing the annual total (now at 245,000) over the next 5 years. The Federal Immigration Minister, Joe Volpe, also made news by committing to increasing the number of sponsored parents and grandparents approved this year and by stating that the immigration selection system should do a better job of addressing the skill shortages that exist in the Canadian labour market. All federal parties, and many of the provinces, have expressed ideas on how to better utilize the skills that economic immigrants bring to the country to ensure that the doctors, accountants, engineers and other skilled individuals that are selected to immigrate here are not prevented from making the most of their skills and experience after they arrive.
Canada is a country founded by immigrants and we now accept more immigrants per capita than any other country in the world. Although our system is not without its flaws, it is important to keep in mind the things our country does right in this area. Virtually all advanced industrialized countries are entering an era where they are competing globally for skills and knowledge. Alongside this trend toward globalization, Canada and many other Western countries are facing demographic pressures that require we look beyond our borders to address shortages of highly skilled workers. Among these countries, perhaps none is better placed to benefit from its vast experience in selecting and settling large numbers of immigrants than Canada.
However, it is also important to keep in mind that those benefits are unlikely to be realized unless our immigrant selection system and settlement services are not properly modernized and enhanced. As someone who has had recent experience working within the immigration division of a provincial government, I can attest to the important role that the provinces must play in selecting skilled and business immigrants if these classes are to bring continuing economic benefits to the province and the country. Canada is simply too large and diverse a country to have one national selection system that can meet the needs of all regions. The provinces are much better placed to select the types of skills and experience needed by their local economies. This means that the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) that have developed across the country will need to grow and expand and that the federal government will in the future have to view the provinces as full partners in the realm of economic immigrant selection.
And once immigrants are here, it is the role of regulatory bodies, which are mostly provincial rather than federal, and Canadian employers to recognize the skills that these individuals bring and provide the opportunities that will allow their skills to be fully utilized. Currently, the Canadian labour market is far too closed to workers whose experience and skills have come from other countries. By contrast, the United States does a much better job of maximizing the economic potential of internationally-trained individuals.
These are some of the larger issues that the federal and provincial governments are currently struggling with and none of them have easy answers. However, I hope that some of your questions can be answered in this space in the near future. I look forward to receiving your inquiries and opinions.
Joe Kenney can be e-mailed at jkenney@www.jkenneyconsulting.com
