Road To Canada Forums

That title should read "Bill C-50 discrimintory or necessary?"

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/419387

The Star Wrote:OTTAWA–Unless "urgent" action is taken to tackle "systemic" problems, Canada's backlog of immigration applications could grow to 1.5 million by 2012, up from 925,000 now, and newcomers will face a 10-year wait, Immigration Minister Diane Finley told a Commons committee yesterday.


"The current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight. The system needs fixing," Finley said.


"We are facing real and serious international competition for the talents and skills that we need to fill," she said, calling for a "renewed" vision for the immigration system.


The immigration minister was appearing before the finance committee to explain the government's proposed reforms, contained in Bill C-50, to speed the processing of new applicants. Last year, the government issued 251,000 permanent resident visas.


Changes to the immigration act would give Finley the power to issue "instructions" to her department to give priority to categories of immigrants whose job skills are in demand in Canada. At the same time, she would have the power to refuse applications in other categories.


But the proposals have stirred fear that the minister and bureaucrats will have too much power to pick and choose broad classes of immigrants, leaving many hopeful newcomers shut out.


"Under her scheme, the minister will be picking winners and losers. Who are these losers?" said New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity Spadina).


But Finley downplayed concerns the new law would allow her to cherry-pick immigrants. She stressed the immigration officers would still make the decisions on individual cases.


She pledged that the immigration system would be "universal and non-discriminatory."


Finley said countries like Britain and Australia are able to process would-be immigrants much faster – sometimes in as little as six months – putting Canada at a disadvantage as its tries to lure skilled workers to come here.


"It can take us up to six years to even begin looking at one's application, let alone process it," she said. "We risk losing talented people to other countries."


The problem is current rules require the department to process every application – in the order they were received, she said. Finley likened it to a hockey team able to pick only the first 25 people who applied for a position, even if that choice left the team without a goalie.


But New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair (Outremont) scoffed at the comparison, calling it the "most absurd thing I've ever heard."
He was unmoved by her call for action yesterday, saying the Tory proposals go too far and risk shutting out talented immigrants who don't make the minister's priority list.


"The system (would be) changed into a purely arbitrary, haphazard system open to discrimination," he said.
Later, he noted that while the Finley cites the backlog as the reason to act, her changes would apply to applications received on or after Feb. 27, 2008.


"When you call them on that, they say it actually doesn't touch the backlog, the new rules only apply to the future," Mulcair said.


Finley was at the finance committee because the reforms are contained in Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. However, opposition MPs are attempting to move the debate to the Commons immigration committee.


Despite Finley's committee appearance yesterday, the minister has already said her government won't entertain any amendments to the legislation.

So what does everyone think of this?

Considering the state of immigration, and the backlog, it probably is necessary. The problem that always comes when this type of discretion is given, is that unless the power is wielded by a very wise, non-partisan person, it is open to abuse. The solution to the problem is actually simple. Simplify the process, and put twice as many IO's in the seats and on the phones. That's unlikely to happen, and I do feel guilty at times that I am through the system already before any changes they may make.

CatherineM Wrote:Considering the state of immigration, and the backlog, it probably is necessary. The problem that always comes when this type of discretion is given, is that unless the power is wielded by a very wise, non-partisan person, it is open to abuse. The solution to the problem is actually simple. Simplify the process, and put twice as many IO's in the seats and on the phones. That's unlikely to happen, and I do feel guilty at times that I am through the system already before any changes they may make.

same as me, there are probably tons of phd, Doctors, more skillful, experienced people than me.. i was benefit because i found an entrance job and went to school here.

but that's the life eh?

The Bill . . . C-50 . . . has passed and will soon be law. It is not what they represented it to be.

The government (that is, Harper and the Conservatives, and Minister Diane Finley in particular) insisted this Bill was about fast-tracking skilled workers. And that it would NOT have an impact on Family Class applications.

It appears Harper and his "government" are adopting the Bushist approach (legislation touted as "forest protection" in substance a blatant logging industry license to harvest previously protected forests).

For most of us here, this new law will probably not have much of an impact, although I heard (but am not certain) it may be applied to applications submitted by a date in March this year (mine was submitted in April).

A crucial aspect of this legislation and change in the law pivots on a single word. In law a single word can have a huge impact. In a key context, the word "shall" (ordinarily interpreted as "must") is replaced by the word "may" (replacing a definite result with a discretionary one).

[FONT='Bookman Old Style']

Quote:
[FONT='Bookman Old Style']The proposed legislation says a visa or document "may" be issued to an applicant who has been ruled admissible by immigration officers, while the existing law says a visa or document "shall" be issued. (from a fact sheet I don't have a link to)[/FONT]

This, combined with several other new *discretionary* powers:

1) is NOT limited, and thus may apply across the board, including to visitors as well Family Class PR applications

2) will allow CIC to set quotas and process applications per a discretionary priority basis . . . in other words, processing of some applications can fall into a bureaucratic abyss of indefinite duration . . . and there is nothing to prohibit this profoundly affecting Family Class applications.

The Harper government, Finley in particular, have been insisting that this legislation will not significantly affect the Family Class applications. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the time it now takes CPC-M to process the sponsorship part of a Spousal app has increased to 43 days from 34 less than two months ago (an increase of more than 25 percent) and processing Visitor Extension applications have gone from 39 days to 66 days (this may be common, or seasonal, since there are reports that it was similarly longer late last summer).

Finley has also insisted that the modification allowing more "discretion" will not result in her "cherry-picking" new immigrants, because individual IOs will still be making the decision. That is of absolutely NO comfort to anyone (and there appears to be many around here) who feels some IOs have already been exercising existing discretion unfairly. More discretion inherently allows more abuse of discretion, more unfairness. And now the means for challenging such exercises of discretion will be severely limited.

This "modernization" reminds me of the labyrinthe bureaucracy Franz Kafka describes in his novel The Castle, in which "K" attempts to move to a new city and commence working as a surveyor. [/FONT]

conspiracy theories aways abound and the political theatre around this issue is beyond imagination.

Yes, family class sponsorships ALWAYS slow down this time of year. Why, because those same officers are processing visitors and student visas which take priority.

Under the current system CIC is forced to look at all skilled worker applications in the order they are submitted. Even if the applicant dies... they still have to formally process the file.

The rule is, first in, first processed. If Canada needs a plumber and he is #11 in the pile, the IO has to go through 10 others first before that applicant can be processed - even if the first 10 will not be able to find jobs in Canada when they arrive. Canada cannot absorb a larger annual quota so forget the idea of hiring more officers to process faster. The only way to meet the skill needs is to find a way to take applications out of sequence.

That is the new law. It is not perfect, but neither was the old system. How can anyone have their life in limbo for 6 years and still not know if they will be successful at the end of it all.

Status quo was not an option.

Foremost, changes could have been implemented simply providing for a separate track applicable to certain skills or trades, and thus met all the claimed objectives for "fast track" processing of such applicants.

Replacing "shall" with "may" in key contexts was not necessary to achieve this. Replacing "shall" with "may" changed more definite, thus more predictable standards, with less definite, more discretionary, and thus less predictable standards.

No conspiracy theory necessary to understand the import of such modifications. The new law will explicitly benefit large business interests. It will also facilitate the influx of more temporary workers, which likewise will benefit big business. Will temporary workers have any where near the same vested interests in the communities where they live while working as permanent residents would? Again, no conspiracy theory necessary to discern who this legislation was for and why.

Definite standards benefit the planning of informed prospective applicants more than trimming a year or two off a several year process. While many applicants may be playing a lottery game when they apply, definite standards allow the informed ones to have more confidence in the probable outcome. This would facilitate their planning. If the objective was to benefit these applicants, again, fast track procedures could have been implemented while preserving the must/definite standards that are necessary to any rational appellate or other review. Again, why the shift to more discretion? (And, moreover, at the same time they reduced the availability of appellate review!) Again, no conspiracy theory necessary to answer that one: more discretion equals more power. Simple as that.

what does big business have to do C-50???

I am not convinced that work permits are such a bad thing. Come here, check it out, see if you fit in, secure employment - THEN apply. How many skilled workers apply, land, go back to their job in the US or Dubai and play the 2 year out of 5 game. Do you really think they are intent on assimilating into Canadian society?

Would the dicretion be more acceptable if someone other than the Conservatives were in power?

Both fast tracking certain skilled labor applicants and additional accommodation for temporary skilled workers could have been implemented without sweeping changes replacing direction with discretion.

The changes clearly benefit big business (supplying more work force) and were advertised as such (well, replace the terms "big business" with "Canadian industry"). They will also benefit limited classes of skilled worker applicants, but few others, at substantial risk to even most of the skilled applicants because the outcome of their applications will now be less predictable. Who benefits the most? Big business.

And what does the discretion to impose quotas (also part of the changes) have to do with improving processing times? (The American system, by the way, is heavily laden with quotas, so much so that the window for applications for some is truncated to a few days of the year.)

This was sold as changes that WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT on Family Class applications. So why was so much more discretion, applicable to Family Class as well as all other classes, part of the changes? Why the limitations on appellate review? In the meantime the actual impact on the Family Class is hereafter subject to the exercise of discretion.

The changes will allow the rejection of qualified applicants. Whether that, down the road, will be applied to Family Class applicants is, with these changes, subject to the discretion of the Minister, not a matter of law or right.

As for the Conservatives . . . or whomever . . . there are other signs that just as south of the border, corporate interests are flexing more muscle in the domestic political arena. It is the impact of corporate interests, and the prospective consequences on innocent bystanders (Family Class applicants in particular), that is bothersome.

Would changes to the process have taken this form under the NDP or Liberals? Not likely. So asking whether this direction would be objectionable if it was taken by a government other than a Conservative one is a non-sequitur.

Maybe related. Maybe not. But in the last year the processing timelines for family class applications increased (as in got longer).

Nearly all other types of applications have improved timelines.

Well, the local paper's headline reads: "Immigration wait times improve slightly."

The minister, Jason Kenney, is quoted as saying "This is a huge development."

Family class stats, however, well, not so rosy; quoting from the article:
"The processing times for family members actually went up in 2008 -- 20 percent for dependent children, and 37.5 percent for spouses and partners."
"Eighty per cent of spouses now have their cases processed within 11 months, up from eight months in 2007, while 80 percent of children are now processed with a year, up from 10 months in 2007."